Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of hyandell@gmail.com designates
 64.233.184.224 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=dfmSNjhbu8o3iBZjjuX0FTrv6qAiwWHDZSfV6jC+oB7dJe3eakrE7ZSVs9zRR/9F70yZN2J0K6wH+TlOeCZeUCb9Bcqqf7IJ+Bb4MHZR3/OMeyLz8a+QRaXEJpeVBLvpcW/6RQDhoiSewj20tiTtdgaqUuPUyqZgWwrOjqRgJ8Q=
Message-ID: <2d12b2f00803111429g6f747fb2g1f69f6eb81137b9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:29:13 -0700
From: "Henri Yandell" <bayard@apache.org>
Sender: hyandell@gmail.com
To: "Guillaume Nodet" <gnodet@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Legal issues in re-bundling some binary dependencies
Cc: private@servicemix.apache.org, "Legal Discuss" <legal-discuss@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <b23ecedc0803111409w1829e2d5td6e4ee65e3e332d4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <b23ecedc0803111409w1829e2d5td6e4ee65e3e332d4@mail.gmail.com>

Very good question.

BSD, AL2, Pub Domain I would suspect that you are correct. CPL, I
would not assume you are correct and we need to discuss. It might be
more a policy than licensing question [I know.... aarrrggghhhh]. That
is we decide that it's okay for us to license such modifications under
their local licenses.

Hen

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gnodet@gmail.com> wrote:
> ServiceMix 4 is being developed based on OSGi.  OSGi require all the
>  jars to be "OSGi bundles", which means that they contain some OSGi
>  specific entries in the jar manifest.   Lots of our dependencies are
>  not already OSGi bundles, so we need to repackage those so that we can
>  acutally use them.
>  The process is to extract / unzip the jar, modify the manifest and
>  repackage it under another name.
>  I just found that it may be a problem for jars categorized as "binary
>  license compatible" with the ASL: I'm mainly thinking about CDDL for a
>  few sun jars that we need, namely jaxb2 spec jar, jaxb2 implementation
>  and saaj implementation which are all under CDDL.
>  Is my assumption right that such jars can not be modified and
>  distributed and that such restrictions does not apply for BSD style,
>  public domain, CPL and AL2 ?
>
>  --
>  Cheers,
>  Guillaume Nodet
>  ------------------------
>  Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
>  only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>  constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>  and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>  official ASF policies and documents.
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>  For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org