Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-repository-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 70359 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 00:05:38 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 00:05:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 30142 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2003 00:05:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-repository-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 30107 invoked by uid 500); 21 Nov 2003 00:05:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact repository-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: repository@apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list repository@apache.org Received: (qmail 30094 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2003 00:05:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO adslgateway.multitask.com.au) (202.44.167.185) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 21 Nov 2003 00:05:24 -0000 In-Reply-To: To: repository@apache.org Subject: Re: licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5 September 26, 2003 From: dion@multitask.com.au Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:11:48 +1100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ADSLGateway/Multitask Consulting/AU(Release 6.0|September 26, 2002) at 21/11/2003 11:11:49 AM, Serialize complete at 21/11/2003 11:11:49 AM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N I'm not sure of the relevance of this to an ASF repository, but.... "Tim Anderson" wrote on 21/11/2003 10:53:47 AM: > 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. IANAL, but the download tool is distributing the binary version of the code. [snip] > . "(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. This depends on how someone defines 'distribute'. > . "(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 the download tool has distributed the software, and it's ASF's download tool.... > If this has been discussed elsewhere, could you post a link? Maybe Jason can provide a link to the board discussion asking us to stop doing the distribution. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/