Paul, Thanks for your note. The XML project is already in the process of getting its third party licensing in order.
Ted On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 11:42, Paul Libbrecht wrote: > > Hi ASF folks, > > I sort of recognize from the current debates about JCP that it may not > be the perfect time to send such a request, but I'll dare it. > This mail is sent to both XML and Jakarta general list as they are both > involved, thanks to tell me if it is useless to send it to both. > > Recently, in our ActiveMath project we spent some time to prepare an > appropriate license and, of course, we had to sort out all the > third-party libraries we were using. > As most of them are Apache or Mozilla licensed, there was no big deal. > > I quickly realized, however, that some others were coming in. SAX and > DOM, to name a few. I scratched and found the license. Then a bit > more... ah the servlet interface class-files. Woups, the download of > them requires a big license: we had been happily using Tomcat 3.1 which > was doing a clean job until I read it: you may deliver the software > (servlet 2.1 class-files) with your product as long as the release date > of your product is no later than 180 days than the release of the > software covered by this license. (quoting non-verbatim) > > That is (we're way later than six months from the latest release of > servlet 2.1), we could not distribute the product with our beloved > Tomcat 3.1 and had to upgrade. > This came as a surprise ! > > I then scratched more to download jaxp 1.1 (the 1.2 being still in early > access) and... nowhere to be found ! Fortunately someone of us had a > complete download with a license... > > This mail would like to request that all Apache distributions, wether > from Jakarta or XML group, be distributed with all the licenses of > accompanying software. > I feel it is important so that the download is a real "pick-up-and-go". > And it is especially important with Sun software (like Jaxp or > servlet.jar) which have licenses which involve non-empty obligations. > > If it is not possible to include such licenses (e.g. because > redistribution of the redistribution is not possible) it should also be > clearly stated such and pointers to the download of the separate > interface-class-files should be available. (I actually fear it is the > case with the jaxp or servlet classes). > > Also, I'd prefer these classes to be packaged separately than put in the > same java archive. I seem to understand, among others from the jaxp > (official and inofficial) FAQ that the tendency goes along the lines of > "the reference implementation (crimson and xalan in this case) contains > the specifications' interfaces" (note, I'm not quoting verbatim). > This would allow normal developers to apply decent versioning. > > And if this has anything in common with the current JCP debate then I > would even insist: putting these licenses or pointers to downloads of > them displays to the public the limitations that ASF has and allows to > attract attention on the problem even more than not saying anything. > > Paul > > ================================================================= > = Paul Libbrecht Java developer The ActiveMath project = > = http://www.activemath.org/~paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] = > ================================================================= > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
