xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Pier P. Fumagalli" <p...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal to checkin jaxp.jar
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2000 01:32:52 GMT
Mike Pogue wrote:
> Ummmm, I vote -1.  The JAXP code was specifically taken *out* of the license-in
> agreement with Sun, because we couldn't get Sun to say that it was OK to
> redistribute it, without being bound by the JAXP spec license (which has some nasty
> parts).  So, rather than hold up everything, we agreed to pull JAXP out of the
> license-in agreement, and work on it separately (which Duncan is doing).
> Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but this proposal (below) does not actually resolve
> the JAXP spec license issues, and we don't end up with anything more than we have
> with Pier's existing implementation (which already implements JAXP).  I don't
> think we need TWO ambiguous JAXP implementations in the source code base (one
> ambiguous one is too many already! :-)
> Alternately, could you provide a pointer to the JAXP RI license (is it different
> from the current JAXP spec license?), so we can check to see whether it's
> different?  If it allows for unlimited redistribution (with no prohibition
> on subsetting/supersetting), then it's a different license, (one that's more
> compatible with open source) and we should take a closer look at it!

Apart from those reasons, wich I understand and agree on, I'd say -1
because to use Sun's RI and Xerces one has ALWAYS to specify 
on the command line... because the default is different, and since we
cannot modify those classes...
i'd just say for whoever wants to use JAXP, get it off the CVS, or i
could just set up a small distrib on my betaversion.org, or even easier,
download it from Sun...


PS Duncan, when we'll be able to see a "decent" license on the spec/ri?
pier: stable structure erected over water to allow docking of seacraft
<mailto:pier@betaversion.org>      <http://www.betaversion.org/~pier/>

View raw message