Hi all, Obviously IANAL. I think that my comments in the pom.xml file are poorly worded though and are not in line with the actual license.
What I was trying to convey is that we do not include this jar or any of it's classes with the compiled binaries of OpenJPA. What I did not consider is that the source code / svn repository may also be considered our distribution of OpenJPA - in which case the jars are distributed. The jars are in the repository so that we can compile against them. WebSphere / IBM provides a proprietary interface which we can use to iteract with the transaction service in a user friendly manner. Rather than maintaining our own stub implementation (which I thought would irk IBM) we obtained a license agreement with IBM to use the jar, but (AFAIK) they did not want us to publish it (ie to a maven repository). As far as I know it has not been raised on legal-discuss. I will raise it there though. -mike On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 2:16 AM, David Jencks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > On Nov 20, 2008, at 10:06 PM, Craig L Russell wrote: > > Hi Fernando, >> >> On Nov 20, 2008, at 4:56 PM, Fernando Padilla wrote: >> >> So I'm trying to setup my environment to do openjpa development.. >>> >>> Reviewing pom files I ran into this under openjpa-kernel. It looks like >>> it brings along a mini embedded repository. For something that "cannot be >>> re-distributed". If it can't be "re-distributed", then we are not allowed >>> to include it in svn. >>> >> >> Where did you get this idea? The svn repository is not a distribution. >> > > I think that argument is specious. I think there's some consensus on > legal-discuss that expected svn checkout roots should have hard coded > LICENSE and NOTICE files applying to everything you get by checking out that > root, IIUC on the grounds that svn checkout is effectively a distribution. > > In any case I think the comment in the pom is wrong, since the license in > the jar says: > > ------------------- > You may use or redistribute the files or modules contained in this jar > subject to the following terms: > > The WebSphere Application Server files or modules contained in this jar > may be redistrubuted as provided by IBM to you, and only as part of Your > application distribution. > > You may not use IBM's name or trademarks in connection with the marketing > of Your applications without IBM's prior written consent. > > IBM PROVIDES THESE FILES OR MODULES ON AN "AS IS" BASIS AND IBM DISCLAIMS > ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE > WARRANTY OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY > OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IBM SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY > DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT > OF THE USE OR OPERATION OF THE FILES OR MODULES . IBM HAS NO OBLIGATION > TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO > THE FILES OR MODULES . > --------------------- > > I think this might well mean that it's ok to distribute the jar unmodified. > I don't see that this means its OK to include in svn.... has this been > raised on legal-discuss? Since this is an area often subject to confusion > and strong opinions it might be clearest for the future if there is a > legal-discuss jira issue that's mentioned in the pom. I don't see guidance > on http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html > > thanks > david jencks > > >> >> Craig >> >> What's the deal with this dependency?? >>> >>> >> Craig L Russell >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://db.apache.org/jdo >> 408 276-5638 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp! >> >> >
