On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:25:00 +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > Kevin O'Neill wrote: > >> I don't believe that points 4 and 5 are violated by "package >> org.apache.xmlform" any more than the statement "import >> org.apache.xmlform"; the license precludes neither one of these things. > > There is a huge difference between > > package org.apache.xmlform; > > and > > import org.apache.xmlform.*; > > and the reason is that the first is a describer, the second is a > reference. > > If you describe your stuff with a name or trademark or sign that is owned > by somebody else and it can be shown that you do *harm* to the trademark > owner when you do, you can get sued for damages. > > If you reference an entity with its name, this is fair use and cannot > cause any harm if properly placed in context. > > The reason why 'package org.apache...' can harm the foundation is, for > example, name clashing. A package name is a unique identifier for a class, > if there is a package name collision in the classloader, it is impossible > to reference one class from another. > > So, if apache decides to use the org.apache.whatever package and somebody > else used it already, there is potential harm. > > The policy of protecting the package name is to avoid further problems > down the road.
I understand your point and agree with it. I would like to however ask some follow up questions :). Say I'm building with cocoon 2.0.4 and there is a bug in the foo. I fix that bug in the version of coccon that I supply to my client. Under normal circumstances I would supply the client with the code (including third party code, patched or not) of the product I'm working on. Can I supply the patched version? Now lets say that I enhance one of the existing components to extend the functionality in some way of the component (say allow for an addition configuration option). Can I supply this version? What if I've submitted both enhancements as patches and they have been excepted for the HEAD version? What if they haven't? > But defining an package and import it (or extend it) are two entirely > different things because they can't do any harm. I think this sort of stuff should be in a licensing FAQ. > Stefano. -k. -- If you don't test then your code is only a collection of bugs which apparently behave like a working program. Website: http://www.rocketred.com.au/blogs/kevin/
