On Aug 6, 2007, at 11:25 AM, David Jencks wrote:
On Aug 6, 2007, at 6:16 AM, Kevan Miller wrote:
Here's where things stand at the moment
Specs
We have a vote on 3 spec releases that have been held up by a CDDL
licensing issue. After reviewing the issues, I don't think these
specs have a problem. They are not built with CDDL licensed
materials. We <could> start to rebase our specs on CDDL licensed
materials. I think this would make things cleaner. However, I
don't think that it is necessary to do that now.
It would also make it so we couldn't release them according to the
draft 3rd party licensing policy at http://people.apache.org/
~cliffs/3party.html which prohibits cddl source code in apache
releases ("Categoy B). Sam has indicated that xsds are source code
in his opinion and I certainly agree.
I also agree that they are source code.
According to the draft 3rd party licensing policy, you are correct. I
used to treat that very literally.
However, we have also gotten a clear advice from Sam Ruby, a member
and current chair of the ASF legal team, that the use of CDDL schemas
is ok. In fact, Sam has instructed all projects to replace Sun
Proprietary/confidential dtd's and xsd's with their CDDL equivalent.
As long as the Geronimo PMC agrees and we follow the rules of the
CDDL license, I don't see a problem. I think we're better off.
Schemas
We have an outstanding vote on two schema releases. These releases
are built from CDDL licensed materials.
I believe the copies under vote are NOT built from CDDL but from
the previous non-cddl xsds. I guess only Prasad knows for sure.
I believe you are correct. I got ahead of myself.
At the moment, the license and notice files for the schema
releases are not correct.
I think they are correct , since the jars are not built from cddl
sources. In any case I think that (in disagreement to Craig
Russell) that even if we started with CDDL schemas the xmlbeans
generated source and binary would be under asf, not cddl. If not,
then the xmlbeans code we've been using generated from the pre-cddl
schemas would be under the mysterious sun license that prohibits
all use, so we wouldn't be able to write a javaee server in the
first place.
I'm going to skip this for now. We can come back to it, if you still
feel we should not move to CDDL licensed schemas.
I think we should do the following: move the schema source
directories from our tck svn repository to our public repository,
fix our license and notice files, and build schema releases from
there. Note that both the schema source directories and the
resultant schema binaries will have CDDL licensed elements. The
current guidance that we have received from legal-discuss is that
both source and binary CDDL is ok for us to release. We will need
to be sure that our schemas follow all CDDL requirements.
I don't think we should do this until the violent disagreement
between the 3rd party licensing policy and sam's suggestion that
it's ok to use the cddl xsds is resolved.
I don't think there's a violent disagreement. I think Sam's opinion
on the matter carries a lot of weight and also makes a lot of sense.
There was some discussion about whether or not schemas are source or
binary. Seems we both agree they are source. So, let's assume they
are source and treat them accordingly.
There is also some discussion about whether xmlbeans or jaxb
generated code would inherit a CDDL license. This may be debatable.
Best case the code is ASL. Worst case it's ASL+CDDL or even just
CDDL. IMO, we can deal just fine with all of those cases. So, let's
make our best call on the appropriate license for the schema jars.
IMO, we end up in a better situation. In particular, we move our
schema code out of tck svn -- this seems like a very, very good thing
to me. Other than the overhead of moving some code, building new
release candidates, and minor mods to license/notice files, I don't
see a downside...
--kevan
