On Aug 10, 2007, at 12:52 AM, Craig L Russell wrote:
On Aug 9, 2007, at 6:50 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
On 8/4/07, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm a bit confused though about the inclusion of cddl xsds in apache
svn since IIUC you have indicated xsds are definitely "source
code" (I completely agree) and the draft 3rd party licensing page
says cddl source can't be in apache releases. It doesn't say
whether
a few files can be in svn or not AFAICT but that certainly looks
like
it would prohibit shipping an asf jar with any cddl xsds in it.
I've updated the draft 3rd party licensing page:
http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html
+1
Thanks for the update, Sam!
Agreed. Also, thanks for the timely and informative responses. They
were very helpful in deciding how to move forward on this matter.
IIUC, Geronimo makes two uses of the CDDL-licensed xsd files.
1. The unmodified xsd files are available to the xml parser to
avoid downloading the files from the internet during operation.
2. The unmodified xsd files are "compiled" into Java classes which
are then compiled into binary form for execution.
The new policy seems to address both cases, assuming that Geronimo
chooses to update their copies of the files to the CDDL-licensed
versions.
Just to be precise, Geronimo does not currently use CDDL-licensed
schema files. Moving to the CDDL-licensed versions of these schema
files is, IMO, the right thing to do. I intend to start this next week.
There's still the question of how the CDDL license extends to the
resultant binaries. Something for next week, I guess...
--kevan
