www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Tim Anderson" <...@netspace.net.au>
Subject licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?)
Date Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:53:47 GMT
Can you clarify the licensing issues further? I'm having trouble
seeing what the problems are.

Suppose ASF has the following link in the repository:
  http://repo.apache.org/sun/jndi/1.2.1/jars/jndi-1.2.1.jar

This is a virtual artifact, not hosted at ASF.

Via http redirection and magic, a download tool:
A. pops up a browser, requiring the user to accept Sun's license
B. downloads the corresponding jndi-1_2_1.zip distribution
   if and only if the user *manually* accepts the license
C. caches the distribution locally
D. extracts jndi.jar from the distribution for local use

Taking the Sun license points one at a time:
. "(i): you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only
   bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Java
   applets or applications ("Programs")"

   I don't see a violation here. The repository is not distributing
   JNDI - its facilitating its download.
   The download tool is not distributing JNDI - its facilitating
   its use by an application.
   As far as I can tell, the only requirement is that the
   onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the license.

. "(ii) the Programs add significant and primary
   functionality to the Software,"

   Again, the onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the license.

. "(iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
   replace any component(s) of the Software"

   Not violated by the repository nor the download tool.

. "(iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
   notices contained in the Software,"

  When unpacking the distribution, the tool needs to ensure
  that license information is retained.

. "(v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license
   agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms
   contained in this Agreement, and"

   Again, the onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the license.

. "(vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from
  and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts
  and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with
  any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results
  from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software."

  The ASF has not distributed the software, so it can't be liable.

If this has been discussed elsewhere, could you post a link?

Thanks,

Tim

> From: dion@multitask.com.au [mailto:dion@multitask.com.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2003 2:46 AM
> To: repository@apache.org
> Subject: Re: click through license support?
>
>
> Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 19/11/2003 01:31:13 AM:
>
> >
> > dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
> >
> > > Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 15/11/2003
> 10:00:07
> PM:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Tim Anderson wrote:
> > ...
> > >>>A tool can 'screen scrape' the redirected page, prompt the user
> > >>>to accept the license and only download if the license is accepted,
> > >>
> > >>If the tool is made to work like a web browser, ie show the pages and
> > >>then download when the user clicks on the button, IMHO it would be
> > >>perfectly acceptable.
> > >
> > > But still illegal.
> >
> > I still don't understand why.
> >
> > I mean, if:
> >
> >   1-  the program opens the browser on the product download page
> >   2 - the user does the download steps as usual
> >   3 - the program gets the downloaded artifact from the local download
> >       location
> >
> > Why would we be breaking the license? The only difference between this
> > approach and the usual one is that the download location is linked.
> >
> > > We've been down this road and are working with Sun on a solution. We
> have
> > > (had?) a tool that would do the above in Maven ages ago.
> >
> > Yes, I'm aware of that.
> >
> > > See http://maven.apache.org/sun-licensing-journey.html
> >
> > Very good that you have this page, thanks for the pointer.
>
> For example, the JavaMail v1.3 BCL has "Supplemental License Terms" which
> state in Point 2. :
>
>  "...Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to
> reproduce and distribute the
> Software in binary code form only, provided that (i) you distribute the
> Software complete and
> unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of
> running, your Java applets or
> applications ("Programs"), (ii) the Programs add significant and primary
> functionality to the
> Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
> replace any component(s) of
> the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
> notices contained in the
> Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license
> agreement that protects Sun's
> interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi)
> you agree to defend and
> indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs,
> liabilities, settlement amounts
> and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with
> any claim, lawsuit or action
> by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of
> any and all Programs
> and/or Software."
>
> I don't think a repository for distributing jars fits the
> requirements for
> (i) or (ii), and may possibly break (iii).
>
> And I don't think the ASF would like to agree to (vi).
> --
> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
> Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
>
>
>
>
>



Mime
View raw message