xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Pogue <mpo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Proposal to checkin jaxp.jar
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2000 19:28:39 GMT
Yep.  I agree with what Arkin and Pier have said in this thread.

Rajiv Mordani wrote:
> Also what I
> am proposing isn't to distribute the JAXP RI. It is just the javax classes
> with xerces implementation of the parser. So it is a product that conforms
> to SAX 2.0 beta, DOM Level 2 CR and JAXP 1.0. 

A parser that allows DOM L2 and SAX 2 Beta in a JAXP
context is non-compliant with the JAXP license (specifically the part about supersetting 
being forbidden).  Note that I did not say "not compliant with the spec", 
which is not a big deal.  I said "non-compliant with the Sun license", 
which is very different.

The basic problem here is that Sun's license goes out of its way to 
prevent parsers from implementing the JAXP API with extensions (like DOM L2).
This is not very compatible with Open Source development, which needs to have the 
freedom to make changes (like extensions) that aren't subject to approval 
by any one company.

Xerces-J already has extensions that are not approved by the W3C (DOM) or by 
xml-dev (SAX).  We would *also* resist signing a document from W3C or xml-dev
that was a promise to never extend or superset the W3C or xml-dev specs!  

So, in essence, the JAXP API and the JAXP JAR file both come with strings 
attached from Sun.  All code from ExOffice, DataChannel, IBM, and all the other
xml.apache.org contributors is under the Apache license, which doesn't 
have those strings.

Until the strings are gone, I have no objection putting a pointer in the 
documentation somewhere, that tells people where to get a version of JAXP 
that will work with Xerces-J.  (Sun itself could provide such a thing, as could 
Pier!).  If such a parser comes from somewhere other than xml.apache.org, 
then it's somebody else's problem with compliance to the Sun license, not ours.


Arkin wrote:
> Rajiv Mordani wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 25 Apr 2000, Arkin wrote:
> >
> > > Rajiv Mordani wrote:
> > > >
> > > > See my response to Mike's mail and also refer to the JAXP RI license.
> > > > isn't the same as the spec license. If you have any further questions
> > > > please let me know.
> > >
> > > The RI license might not be the same as the spec, but it does requires
> > > compliance with the JAXP specification.
> > >
> > > While Apache can "acquire" a JAXP distribution license from Sun and ship
> > > the JAXP RI, that does not cover other projects/products that must, in
> > > my understanding of the license, re-acquire the distribution license
> > > from Sun in order to ship a version of Apache software that contains the
> > > JAXP RI. That violates the nature of frictionless open source software
> > > distribution.
> >
> > The RI license mentions that it is redistributable with your product. So I
> > don't see the point you are making here?? As for being conformant with
> > JAXP, isn't a goal to be conformant to standards available???  Also what I
> > am proposing isn't to distribute the JAXP RI. It is just the javax classes
> > with xerces implementation of the parser. So it is a product that conforms
> > to SAX 2.0 beta, DOM Level 2 CR and JAXP 1.0.
> >
> > I think I am missing something here. Could you explain to me a little more
> > what is the problem you see in distribution with Open source software??
> The RI license must be acquired from Sun, it cannot be passed from
> Apache to it's users (non-transferable, limited).
> That means once I obtain a JAR including JAXP from Apache I cannot
> distribute it without going to Sun's Web site and clicking Yes on the
> license agreement. There are certain restrictions there that must be
> agreed upon by whoever distributes the JAXP or anything containing the
> JAXP which are not the same as the ASF restrictions applicable to all
> software coming from Apache.
> As for conformance, since I don't know that Xerces is conformant with
> JAXP, and since my version of Xerces can be mutulated in any way I see
> fit and non-conformant even if a particular downloadable version is, it
> cannot be distributed with JAXP without including parser.jar. That puts
> a limitation on the ability to modify the open source code (at the
> expense of breaking compatibility).
> We can discuss this legal issues to death, but generally people
> downloading software from Apache should not be concerned with these
> issues, they should get software under an ASF or compatible license.
> arkin
> >
> > - Rajiv
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Assaf Arkin                                           www.exoffice.com
> CTO, Exoffice Technologies, Inc.                        www.exolab.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: xerces-j-dev-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message