JM> I'm not a lawyer so will neither wrestle or argue legal points. Some
JM> non-legal points
JM> - Signing will make changing JARs problematic.
If you wrap them, you do not touch the signatures.
JM> - Updates also will force you to retweak.
Yes, but that is true for any solution that requires additional
metadata.
JM> - If the JARs are delivered as part of something else you may not have a
JM> chance to modify
But if you need to provide new metadata, you need to do something??
JM> - User permissions on the machine may not allow for modification (we have
JM> scenarios where we run off CDs and don't use any local storage)
Well, then you can't support native code, getDataFile(), caching, how
many bundles run in such a restricted env?
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
JM> Jeff
JM> Rob Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JM> 04/13/2006 11:47 AM
JM> Please respond to
JM> [email protected]
JM> To
JM> [email protected]
JM> cc
JM> Jeff McAffer/Ottawa/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JM> Subject
JM> Re: Fixed bug in class loading
JM> Does anyone have a real example where a commercial software vendor has
JM> actually refused to allow someone to adjust the bundle Manifest of their
JM> licensed bundle so that it would work better in an OSGi environment?
JM> As a commercial software vendor, I can quite honestly say:
JM> * We include numerous 3rd party JARs, some commercial, in our OSGi
JM> bundle set and in no case has any software vendor refused to allow
JM> us to change or add to their manifest even if their license did
JM> not explicitly grant this right
JM> * Frankly we could care less if someone wants to modify bundle
JM> manifests of any of our JARs, even if doing so is against the
JM> letter of our license. As long as they are making legal use of our
JM> software, and paying us any requisite fee we're happy to have them
JM> as a customer. Ok, if their changes break something we might not
JM> cover helping them fix it under standard support - but aside from
JM> this, the widest possible legal use of our software is fine with us.
JM> Simply changing a manifest (esp. the import / export parts) may not be
JM> strictly legal - but I suspect most vendors won't object if you explain
JM> your needs and ask for permission. You wouldn't be getting any usage or
JM> redistribution rights out of doing so, but you'd be making use of their
JM> software which is what most vendors want!
JM> Regards
JM> -- Rob
--
Peter Kriens Tel +33870447986
9C, Avenue St. Drézéry AOL,Yahoo: pkriens
34160 Beaulieu, France ICQ 255570717
Skype pkriens Fax +1 8153772599
