> Did you know that the Cocoon guys have jimi.jar in their CVS? I wonder > if that's correct and if yes, I think we should do it, too.
>From my reading of it, by downloading the jar you automatically agree to the license. This is quite different to ASL. It is also non-transferable, I think that means the person who downloaded and agreed to the license cannot then make it available to others. > Reading the licence I get the impression that redistribution of the jar > is possible but not without restrictions. IANAL so who can we ask if > distributing this jar is ok? The XML PMC is supposed to look after these issues (and I think if cocoon is top level then a cocoon PMC). > I get the impression that things like that will be an everlasting > problem. There should be a central source of information on licencing at > Apache. A place where the gathered legal knowledge can be hammered in > stone and be reused by other projects. Even the fact that we didn't > include jimi.jar and Cocoon did gives me an uneasy feeling that the > licence-sweep held at the XML project last year wasn't done 100% right. > > I'd like to escalate that topic again. What I think would be in the best > interest of the Apache Foundation would be a central source of > information where all projects and subprojects can get information on > licencing. The following things would be very helpful: > - Licence guidelines > - A document describing the relationship of the APL to other licences. > (what's compatible, what's not and why) > - A list of approved products to be redistributable by Apache > > What are your thoughts? > > Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
