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 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 08:17:10 GMT
Do I understand correctly the fear of Marshall that the claim seems to  
be that this whole jar is that of mx4j project (this is incorrect in  
the sense that some elements are from jcp and not the mx4j project)  
and that all these classes are compilations of APL-licensed code?  
(that seems also wrong to me, it is licensed thanks to the JCP which,  
because mx4j implemented it, allows redistribution).

Such practice is indeed, not isolated, however, and I fear it has been  
a crab's nest since long.

paul


Le 01-déc.-09 à 19:03, Mark Thomas a écrit :

> Marshall Schor wrote:
>> The mx4j jar (used in many apache projects, including tomcat,  
>> geronimo,
>> ActiveMQ) claims to be licensed under an apache style license (see:
>> http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html ) .
>>
>> If you unzip the jar file, you find it has, in addition to mx4j  
>> classes,
>> javax.management... classes that appear to be from the j2ee java
>> distribution.
>
> No, they are not from any other J2EE distribution.
>
> The nice thing about open source is that you can look at the source
> code. A quick peek shows that these classes have been implemented by  
> the
> mx4j team. This is something they are required to do in order to  
> provide
> a compliant JSR003 and JSR160 implementation.
>
> Tomcat does something similar for the JSP and Servlet APIs, Geronimo
> does it for all the J2EE APIs, etc
>
>> Is it OK to distribute these javax... classes with this license?
>
> Yes.
>
>> ActiveMQ's main jar,apache-activemq-4.1.1.jar, for instance, includes
>> javax.management... and javax.jms.... classes.
>
> Again, as it is required to do in order to implement the spec. As long
> as the source for those classes was developed by the ActiveMQ team (or
> obtained under an appropriate license) - which I am sure it would have
> been - then there is no issue.
>
> What would not be OK, for example, would be copying the implementation
> of any classes from the JBoss source tree.
>
>> We are redistributing
>> this main jar, as well as mx4j, as part of our project (uima-as), and
>> are trying to get the proper license for this.
>
> As long as you provide the proper entries in the LICENSE and NOTICE  
> file
> then you will be fine. That is the only thing you need to worry about
> for those libraries.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


Mime
View raw message