Here's what I would suggest: If the BEA committers are interested, it might be helpful for them to talk to BEA's legal folks about how flexible BEA can be on the licensing terms, within the constraints of the JCP agreements they have with Sun. It sounds like this may already be happening.
When someone representing BEA is ready to discuss this with the XMLBeans PMC, they should send mail either to this list or, for issues considered too sensitive for public discussion, to the pmc list. Once the PMC has gotten input from BEA on this, we'll discuss what we are able to do within the constraints of Apache's legal policies. The only reason I'm not diving into this part now is that there is a related discussion going on at the legal-discuss list (open to any committer). Cliff (spoken with both PMC chair hat and Legal Affairs hat on) On 8/15/05, Cezar Andrei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We (the committers for XMLBeans) are actively working on this. It is > definitely an issue and we apologize for the delay - but we want to get it > right - so we are actively talking to the lawyers on how to resolve this and > unfortunately it's taking a while. Please bear with us - we will try and > resolve this issue as quickly as possible. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: robert burrell donkin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:43 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Legal issue: Considering Sun's JSR173 implementation over > > Bea's > > > > On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 14:07 +0300, Panu Hällfors wrote: > > > [my first post seemed to jam somewhere, reposting] > > > > > > Thanks for taking on the issue. My comments below. > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 05:52:09PM -0700, Cezar Andrei wrote: > > > > The jsr173_1.0_api.jar contains binaries for The Streaming API > > > > for XML (StAX), also known as JSR173. Since, BEA was the lead of this > > > JSR, it was responsible for making this binary under a > > > > publicly usable license under the JCP rules. Further more, the > > > > file jsr173_api.jar included in Sun's jwsdp-1.6\sjsxp\lib is the same > > > binary, under the same BEA.RI.LIC.txt license. > > > > > > First, the jsr173_api.jar in Sun's jwsdp is not the same binary as > > Bea's. > > > To begin with, there is a different number of files > > > in each of them. > > > > > > Secondly, I didn't find any documentation about BEA.RI.LIC.txt > > > applying to jsr173_api.jar. The documentation in Bea's distribution says > > > that that BEA.RI.LIC.txt applies to the "reference implementation but I > > > can't find anything that would define that jsr173_api.jar is part of the > > > reference implementation. > > > > this is something that needs cleaning up on a couple of levels. > > > > IMHO going forward, this dependency is something that should really be > > resolved accurately. if there is any doubt about the identity of the jar > > in external/lib/ then i would recommend replacing this with a known > > dependency (the sun RI seems like a good candidate). the license for the > > jar should also be included in any future releases. > > > > i agree with Cezar that it is important to have a license file for the > > bea jar shipped in the release. i wonder whether it would be possible > > for cliff to confirm that the understanding of the licensing for this > > jar is correct... > > > > - robert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
