At 20:05 01.10.2001 +0200, you wrote: >Ahh! I got it. Sun's download site for the JMX offers two options - >binaries or source. When you download the "binaries", all you get is a PDF >white paper and Javadocs. When you download the "source", you get source, >Jars, Javadocs and a whole lot more. That includes the HtmlAdaptor. The >Javadocs you get with the "binaries" download contain no mention whatsoever >of the "sun.com..." classes.
That is not what I observe. The binary from http://java.sun.com/products/JavaManagement/download.html contains the relevant jars (jmxri.jar and jmxtools.jar). You have to register to get the zip file though. >You and I have been talking about two slightly >different things, and I have been assuming you had downloaded the JDMK >evaluation kit, *in addition to the JMX*, since I didn't understand where >else you could have gotten a copy of the HtmlAdpator. I've since downloaded >the JMX "source", and now I see where you got it from. > >*Nevertheless*, I'm afraid the situation still looks bad. In the >documentation that comes with "jmx-1_0_1-ri_bin.zip", there are statements >like this: >"In this software bundle, Sun also provides classes for an HTML adaptor: >these are independent of the JMX specification and are provided only for >demonstration purposes." (in ../jmx/index.htm). >And this "This last package contains implementation internals that are not >defined by the JMX specification." (in ../jmx/doc/files.htm, referring to >the "com.sun.." pacakage). >"The Java class files of the RI toolkit, mainly the HTML protocol adaptor. >These classes are not part of the JMX RI per se, but are provided with it >for added functionality" (on the same page). >And this, probably the most explicit statement: "Note: The HTML adaptor is a >tool provided in this software bundle for demonstration purposes. Its >classes are not defined by the JMX specification and are therefore not part >of the JMX reference implementation." (in ../jmx/doc/tutorial.htm). > >Finally, the license I got prompted to agree to at download was labeled "SUN >COMMUNITY SOURCE LICENSE", and made explicit references to redistribution >etc. Quote: > >"II. PURPOSE. > >Original Contributor is licensing the Reference Code and >Technology Specifications and is permitting implementation >of Technology under and subject to this Sun Community Source >License (the "License") to promote research, education, >innovation and product development using the Technology. > >COMMERCIAL USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF TECHNOLOGY IS PERMITTED >ONLY UNDER OPTIONAL SUPPLEMENTS TO THIS LICENSE." > >Note that last sentence there. Essentially, this license grants you what >Sun refers to as "Research use" rights, which are defined as: > >""Research Use" means research, evaluation, development, >educational or personal and individual use, excluding use or >distribution for direct or indirect commercial (including >strategic) gain or advantage." > >I'm not a lawyer, Ceki, and maybe the ASF will need to involve one, but this >sure doesn't look to me like the sort of thing you can use in Log4J... >In a business law class I once had, I remember hearing a term that sort of >applies here; "bait and switch". Sun lures you in with the JMX RI, which >includes an adaptor ("bait"), and then when you're hooked, and you want to >actually use the thing, they hit you up for licensing fees of many thousands >of dollars ("switch"). And these guys complain about Microsoft? Sheesh... I share your concerns but lets not jump to conclusions. W3C and RAND licensing is even more worrisome. Regards, Ceki -- Ceki Gülcü - http://qos.ch --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
