On Nov 21, 2008, at 10:36 AM, Fernando Padilla wrote:
Cool. It was just a little bit weird. And I finally realized that
it was not distributed with the binary, but it is being distributed
with all sources...
I just wish things were cleaner, and all dependencies were from an
authoritative source, etc etc. I wonder if we can talk to IBM for
them to release atleast the api (or talk to apache/geronimo to carry
an opensource version of the api much like they carry their own
versions of all apis ). Or if we split off the websphere support
into its own project (like non-free ubuntu), hosted elsewhere.. and
people download that if needed..
My memory is really fuzzy, but isn't this api there to provide easy to
use encapsulation of a "requires new" semantic, and wasn't there a
plan to try to get this into ee6? What happened to that? This seemed
like a great idea to me and getting it into a spec api seems like the
best of all worlds to me.
thanks
david jencks
Michael Dick wrote:
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!
