I actually did read the spec and type in the classes once. (I think it
was for the timer spec...?)
I believe that if we do that, we have no problems because of the
copyright notice in the spec.
I've also discussed this issue regarding the lack of any recognizable
license for their code w/ BEA and IBM, and they have made it very clear
that they will provide one if needed.
So the question is, type or wait for license? I say "type"
geir
David Jencks wrote:
We have a patch with an implementation of the commonj timer spec. I'd
like to get this into svn soon. One issue is straightening out the
license provisions for the api and implementations. AFAICT commonj is a
joint effort of BEA and IBM.
The bea website discussing commonj is:
http://dev2dev.bea.com/wlplatform/commonj/twm.html
After the download links it states:
This specification is being made available on an RF basis (as detailed
in the Copyright notice of the specification); therefore, BEA does not
require an implementation license. If you prefer, however, you may
request a license from BEA to implement the specification.
The specification pdf says:
and earlier:
(sorry about the pictures, I can't figure out how to copy out of a pdf
otherwise)
There is a link to a zip of source code for the api. These files
contain the following license statement:
/* Timer for Application Servers
* Version 1.1
* Licensed Materials - Property of BEA and IBM
*
* © Copyright BEA Systems, Inc. and International Business Machines Corp
2003-2004. All rights reserved.
*/
My theory about this is that we might not need a license to write our
own api classes from the javadoc, or to write implementations of the
api, but that we can't simply check in the existing source code without
some documentation/grants from IBM and BEA.
Since there are only about 14 classes in the api it would undoubtedly be
much quicker to simply write out the classes from the javadoc than seek
documentations/grants.
I assume that a patch to a jira issue containing apache licensed api
classes, with permission granted to apache for inclusion, supported by
CLA and CCLA, would also be fine.
My interpretation of the statements about licensing are that we don't
need a license. However I'm not at all confident I've interpreted this
properly. How can we proceed?
thanks
david jencks
