www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Craig McClanahan <craig...@gmail.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 02:04:08 GMT
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


Mime
View raw message