Richard S. Hall wrote:
Karl Pauls wrote:
No this is different. We are not distributing any interfaces of Java.
We are only implementing (in java language terms) interfaces.
In the framework case, we are actually distributing a class called
org.osgi.framework.AdminPermission. That is different.
Well, I am not 100% convinced that it is necessary in this case, since
our expression of AdminPermission should not violate the OSGi Alliance's
copyright on their expression of AdminPermission, since ours is not a
copy of theirs, but is a completely separate implementation.
We could just do it to be safe, but I don't believe it is necessary.
-> richard
I agree with you , this is not a case of code redistribution.
May be the use of the OSGi package can be misleading.
But I don't understand why you are continuing to worry about OSGi
Alliance's copyright if it is a completely separate implementation.
francesco
The only problem I see concerns the kind of code we are assembling, if
the code is under GPL and our software would not work without it, then
the software would be considered as a derived software of GPL code but
the problem would be the license used, not the notice file.
As I said, the situation with reciprocity is different and warrants a
NOTICE. In case of GPL code it is actually pretty easy; we are not
allowed to use it.
BTW I think that asking to the legal@ ML would be fine ;-)
francesco
Well, of you go and digg in the archives whether it has been discussed
already. If not, then yes, maybe we should ask :-)
regards,
Karl
