xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Theodore W. Leung" <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: About third-party software in ASF distributions
Date Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:30:04 GMT

Thanks for your note.  The XML project is already in the process of
getting its third party licensing in order. 


On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 11:42, Paul Libbrecht wrote:
> Hi ASF folks,
> I sort of recognize from the current debates about JCP that it may not 
> be the perfect time to send such a request, but I'll dare it.
> This mail is sent to both XML and Jakarta general list as they are both 
> involved, thanks to tell me if it is useless to send it to both.
> Recently, in our ActiveMath project we spent some time to prepare an 
> appropriate license and, of course, we had to sort out all the 
> third-party libraries we were using.
> As most of them are Apache or Mozilla licensed, there was no big deal.
> I quickly realized, however, that some others were coming in. SAX and 
> DOM, to name a few. I scratched and found the license. Then a bit 
> more... ah the servlet interface class-files. Woups, the download of 
> them requires a big license: we had been happily using Tomcat 3.1 which 
> was doing a clean job until I read it: you may deliver the software 
> (servlet 2.1 class-files) with your product as long as the release date 
> of your product is no later than 180 days than the release of the 
> software covered by this license. (quoting non-verbatim)
> That is (we're way later than six months from the latest release of 
> servlet 2.1), we could not distribute the product with our beloved 
> Tomcat 3.1 and had to upgrade.
> This came as a surprise !
> I then scratched more to download jaxp 1.1 (the 1.2 being still in early 
> access) and... nowhere to be found ! Fortunately someone of us had a 
> complete download with a license...
> This mail would like to request that all Apache distributions, wether 
> from Jakarta or XML group, be distributed with all the licenses of 
> accompanying software.
> I feel it is important so that the download is a real "pick-up-and-go". 
> And it is especially important with Sun software (like Jaxp or 
> servlet.jar) which have licenses which involve non-empty obligations.
> If it is not possible to include such licenses (e.g. because 
> redistribution of the redistribution is not possible) it should also be 
> clearly stated such and pointers to the download of the separate 
> interface-class-files should be available. (I actually fear it is the 
> case with the jaxp or servlet classes).
> Also, I'd prefer these classes to be packaged separately than put in the 
> same java archive. I seem to understand, among others from the jaxp 
> (official and inofficial) FAQ that the tendency goes along the lines of 
> "the reference implementation (crimson and xalan in this case) contains 
> the specifications' interfaces" (note, I'm not quoting verbatim).
> This would allow normal developers to apply decent versioning.
> And if this has anything in common with the current JCP debate then I 
> would even  insist: putting these licenses or pointers to downloads of 
> them displays to the public the limitations that ASF has and allows to 
> attract attention on the problem even more than not saying anything.
> Paul
>   =================================================================
>   = Paul Libbrecht       Java developer    The ActiveMath project =
>   = http://www.activemath.org/~paul           paul@activemath.org =
>   =================================================================
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:general-help@jakarta.apache.org>

In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message