xmlgraphics-batik-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Theodore W. Leung" <twle...@sauria.com>
Subject Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Date Tue, 05 Feb 2002 20:14:41 GMT
My understanding - via Dirk is that according to US law, a file without
a license is undistributable, and that includes our own jars,

Dirk, can you expand on this if I haven't got it right?


On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 00:42, Vincent Hardy wrote:
> Hello,
> Following Dirk's email on third-party jars we have addressed the license
> issues in Batik on third-party jars (which was the point of the email),
> not on jars coming from Apache code. Note that this only required moving
> and renaming the license that we already included for the only real 
> 3rd party jar we have.
> This is why we have not added license/readme for crimson, ant and jaxp
> which come from Apache and we did not consider as 3rd party (we think
> of the various Apache projects as being part of the same family, not
> third party).
> About jaxp, the commiter who added it to the Batik repository pointed
> that the source code was available under the Apache license in
> xml-commons 
> so an additional license seemed superfluous:
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/
> may be Edwin could tell us if we got the wrong impression.
> It is not a big deal to add a license for Apache jars, but 
> I would like to understand why it is needed, as these are not 
> third party jars. 
> If the point is to document every single jar so that we
> are extremely clear as to where the jars come from, then that sounds
> like
> a good idea: it is better to communicate a little too much than too
> little.
> Thanks for clarifying why we need the license on Apache jars.
> Cheers,
> Vincent Hardy.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message