www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:58:18 GMT

On Dec 2, 2009, at 11:46 PM, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

> I'm sorry Craig,
> I still do not understand.
> Do you mean the Geronimo team or the MX4j team would have  
> (re-)written the classes (mostly java interfaces) in the package  
> javax.* and shipped them along?

That is what the geronimo team did.  When geronimo started the spec  
jars from sun were not available under a license compatible with the  
apache license.

> Isn't this really confusing according to the expectation (at least  
> mine) that package naming defines origin?

Confusion is relative.  It doesn't confuse me.
The specifications came from the JCP and were certainly heavily  
influenced by sun, but as has been pointed out earlier in this thread  
the spec license specifically allows independent implementation.
AFAICT your argument would mean that harmony could not exist.
> 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?

david jencks

> paul
> Le 03-déc.-09 à 03:04, Craig McClanahan a écrit :
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Paul Libbrecht  
>> <paul@activemath.org> wrote:
>>> Le 02-déc.-09 à 20:19, Mark Thomas a écrit :
>>>> In summary:
>>>> - use of mx4j is not an issue for any ASF project
>>>> - that gfact that a project implements a JSR does not require any
>>>> entries in a project's LICENSE or NOTICE file
>>> I feel this summary is only true as long as the distribution does  
>>> not
>>> include any specification classes which is, I thought, the issue  
>>> we're
>>> discussing and not at all the redistribution of the reference
>>> implementation.
>> You are missing a key point ... the specification classes jar in
>> question was *not* part of the spec or the reference implementation
>> (although the description of the API they implement *is* defined by
>> the spec).  The jar was provided by the MX4J team.
>>> I've seen many tomcats distribute servlet.jar. That's ok if it is  
>>> properly
>>> explained that servlet.jar is from another source and is  
>>> distributed with
>>> another license. I've seen this broken many times.
>> Tomcat's servlet.jar is not from another source (although  
>> technically,
>> because Tomcat was contributed to Apache before there was a JCP,  
>> these
>> classes were originally contributed to Apache rather than created
>> here).  As a more modern example, all the API jar files in Geronimo
>> were created at Apache, by Apache committers, and licensed under the
>> Apache License.
>>> Claiming the mx4j.jar was covered by APL is, I believe we all  
>>> agree, the
>>> wrong and disputed thing. Or?
>> "Or" indeed.  That is not how it works.
>>> And the Apache projects that use it, as I
>>> understand, should not distribute a jar that is wrongly licensed  
>>> and should
>>> split.
>> They should indeed not distribute jars from other parties with
>> incompatible licenses.  However, the MX4J implementation includes API
>> classes provided by the MX4J team, just as Geronimo provides all the
>> javax.* APIs that are part of Java EE.  The sources for these files
>> were authored by the respective teams, not copied from the
>> specification or the reference implementation.
>>> paul
>> Craig McClanahan
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org

View raw message