www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Libbrecht <p...@activemath.org>
Subject Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2009 13:26:17 GMT

Le 03-déc.-09 à 09:58, David Jencks a écrit :

>> This is striking compared to W3C specs which do include properly  
>> licensed method names.
> What?  This statement does confuse me.  Who are the method names  
> licensed from?  What is proper about the license?

The W3C delivers the DOM interfaces, for example, under several open  
It makes zero sense to me to not allow wide unmodified redistribution  
of a spec's contract concretization but I understand this is how it  
happened and I'll be in peace.

It would be the first time I see a "breakage" of the "package =  
origin" contract.
Maybe a little note to the effect that it was rewritten in some  
"readmes" or "about" could help because I believe I am not the only  
one with such an assumption.

You learn every day, thanks!


View raw message