RE: License issue (the come back)

[GOMEZ Henri]

>We have setup [EMAIL PROTECTED] for that reason (this is 
>also commonly
>discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and 

both list are not available to basic commiters ?

>have setup pages
>like this one to help us track things...
>
>http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jars.html
>

Yes, but how could I find this page from homepage ?

BTW, you could add to jaf exclusion :

jaas, javahelp, javamail, jdbc-stdext, jimi, jms, jta, jts

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: License issue (the come back)

[GOMEZ Henri]

>
>It has nothing to do with language barriers or who I know.
>
>- I went to each product on Sun's website.
>Ex: 

ok

>- I clicked the 'Download' link on the left side navigation.
>Ex: 

ok

>- I clicked the 'continue' button on the page.
>Ex: "Download the version 1.0.2b Source, API 
>Documentation and Jar
> (the jar file has been added)"

ok

>- I looked at the license and the words
>Ex: "You have chosen to download Java(TM) Message 
>Service (JMS) API
> -- Javadoc 1.0.2b
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Binary Code License Agreement"

And then you have to understand what is exactly BCL.
I'm not a lawyer, english is not my primary language sorry,
so 2 reasons to be more than carefull

>> BTW, Guillaume and I want to know if we could or couldn't
>> make the Sun jars available via jpackage project next
>> to others free jars, with the final goal to have a ready
>> to use Java distribution which will be a great benefits
>> for all the Java community, both developpers and users.
>
>The BCL states that you cannot make a distribution of the .jar 
>file outside
>of your product. In other words, if you want to distribute the 
>single .jar
>file, you can't do that.

Ok, so you confirm us that the Sun jars couldn't be used outside
a real program and as such couldn't be part of a RPM distribution ?
But what happen if that distribution use these jars (ie javamail)
for REAL program (like Tomcat 4.x) ?

>"(i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only 
>bundled as
>part of your Programs"

'Part of my program', could we see a distribution as a set of 
programs depending on BCL jars for both build, install and
runtime ?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: License issue (the come back)

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 3/12/02 5:02 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The problem is that the list should be reversed - i.e. what licences
> are _allowed_ and verified by a lawyer.
> 
> And we have 2 issues - what jars are allowed in CVS, and what jars
> are allowed in the binary software we distribute.
> 
> Costin

We welcome your contributions.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: License issue (the come back)

[costinm]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:

> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jars.html

The problem is that the list should be reversed - i.e. what licences
are _allowed_ and verified by a lawyer. 

And we have 2 issues - what jars are allowed in CVS, and what jars 
are allowed in the binary software we distribute. 

Costin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: License issue (the come back)

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 3/12/02 4:41 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The only possible conclusion is that software shouldn't be redistributed
> without a lawyer checking and aproving every included license, and
> we need a list of licenses that are acceptable for inclusion on
> packages we distribute ( from jakarta, xml, etc ), verified by a lawyer.
> 
> Costin

Correct.

We have setup [EMAIL PROTECTED] for that reason (this is also commonly
discussed on [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]) and have setup pages
like this one to help us track things...

http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jars.html

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: License issue (the come back)

[cmanolache]

> The BCL states that you cannot make a distribution of the .jar file outside
> of your product. In other words, if you want to distribute the single .jar
> file, you can't do that.
> 
> "(i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as
> part of your Programs"

What about a dummy program - say "Linux java installer" - with minimal 
code ?
If this is not acceptable, you can probably just redistribute ant or 
tomcat4, which make use of almost all those packages. Ant is the best 
vehicle, and very usefull to have it installed anyway. 

BTW, the clause 'complete and unmodified' is very interesting - does it
refers to the jar or the whole binary package ( most people refer to the
whole downloaded package as 'software', and the jar is a piece of it ).  
If so, tomcat and most other packages that include it are breaking
the licences, since they repackage and include only the jar.
'Software' is previously defined as 'accompanying software 
and documentation and any error corrections provided by Sun (collectively 
"Software")

Even more fun is the restriction on creating 'java., javax., or sun.' 
packages. Does it mean that you're not allowed to include open source
( and clean room ) implementations of javax. pacakges if you include
one of those licences ? 

The only possible conclusion is that software shouldn't be redistributed
without a lawyer checking and aproving every included license, and 
we need a list of licenses that are acceptable for inclusion on 
packages we distribute ( from jakarta, xml, etc ), verified by a lawyer.

Costin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: License issue (the come back)

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 3/12/02 1:13 PM, "GOMEZ Henri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> I went through the java.sun.com website and in about 30
>> seconds found the
>> licenses for the first 3 'no license' items below...you can do
>> the rest of
>> the work...
> 
> Could you help us in such works since :
> 
> - you were damn't fast on such hard task
> - you have many friends at Sun which could help you
> 
> Don't forget that Guillaume and I are french and we may
> have sometimes problems in understanding all the subtilities
> of all the Sun licenses in english only.
> 
> We'll be more than happy to have a french version of them.
> 
> Nota that many others companies like IBM provide license
> in several languages to help their users / customers...

It has nothing to do with language barriers or who I know.

- I went to each product on Sun's website.
Ex: 
- I clicked the 'Download' link on the left side navigation.
Ex: 
- I clicked the 'continue' button on the page.
Ex: "Download the version 1.0.2b Source, API Documentation and Jar
 (the jar file has been added)"
- I looked at the license and the words
Ex: "You have chosen to download Java(TM) Message Service (JMS) API
 -- Javadoc 1.0.2b
 Sun Microsystems, Inc.
 Binary Code License Agreement"

> BTW, Guillaume and I want to know if we could or couldn't
> make the Sun jars available via jpackage project next
> to others free jars, with the final goal to have a ready
> to use Java distribution which will be a great benefits
> for all the Java community, both developpers and users.

The BCL states that you cannot make a distribution of the .jar file outside
of your product. In other words, if you want to distribute the single .jar
file, you can't do that.

"(i) distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as
part of your Programs"

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: License issue (the come back)

[GOMEZ Henri]

>I went through the java.sun.com website and in about 30 
>seconds found the
>licenses for the first 3 'no license' items below...you can do 
>the rest of
>the work...

Could you help us in such works since :

- you were damn't fast on such hard task
- you have many friends at Sun which could help you 

Don't forget that Guillaume and I are french and we may 
have sometimes problems in understanding all the subtilities
of all the Sun licenses in english only.

We'll be more than happy to have a french version of them.

Nota that many others companies like IBM provide license 
in several languages to help their users / customers...

BTW, Guillaume and I want to know if we could or couldn't
make the Sun jars available via jpackage project next
to others free jars, with the final goal to have a ready
to use Java distribution which will be a great benefits
for all the Java community, both developpers and users.

 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: cvs commit: jakarta-poi/build/jakarta-poi/docs/apidocs/org/apache/poi/util - New directory

[Peter Donald]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:14, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> As a future suggestion: probably at least one committer to every project
> should have access to the webserver.  I know its important to protect it
> and all, but since there is currently no good alternative...  It doesn't
> work otherwise.  Trust me.

In theory thats what your "champion" is supposed to do. ie Whoever is your 
champion does all the updating until you know the system enough and get given 
appropriate access/permissions/instructions. Bug them and all should flow ;)

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

-
First, we shape our tools, thereafter, they shape us.
-


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: JakartaOne

[Peter Donald]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:19, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> Before we do the call for papers, does anyone really care?  I would rather
> do nothing than do something lame.
>
> Serious show of hands here - if you will be in the area, and are interested
> in attending, say so.  Feel free to send to me directly so we don't bomb
> the list with that kind of noise.  I will post a summary.

Love to come along and see some faces but melbournes a long way away ;)


-- 
Cheers,

Pete

*--*
| The best defense against logic is ignorance. |
*--*


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: License issue (the come back)

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 3/12/02 7:05 AM, "Guillaume Rousse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So we did, and here is the result

You didn't find licenses for a lot of software that has licenses...instead
of saying 'no license' which implies that it does not have a license, you
should have stated ('could not find a license')...

I went through the java.sun.com website and in about 30 seconds found the
licenses for the first 3 'no license' items below...you can do the rest of
the work...

> non-free
> jaasBCL + LDS
> jafBCL
> javahelpBCL + LDR
> javamail BCL + LDS
> jaxpBCL + LDS
> jdbc-stdext no license

BCL

> jimiBCL + LDS
> jmsno license

BCL

> jndino license

BCL

> jtano license
> jtopenno package
> jtsBCL + LD
> netbeans-java-extbinno license
> resolverno license
> 
> non-distributable
> javacc?
> jsseBCL + LD
> sun-jsdk1.3 BCL + LDS + LDR
> sun-jsdk1.4BCL + LDS + LDR
> blackdown-jsdk1.3 BCL + LDS + LDR
> ibm-jsdk1.3?


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: License issue (the come back)

[Berin Loritsch]

Danny Angus wrote:
>>The last point is the only real problem IMHO. Basically, it forbids to
>>export software in "free world ennemy countries TM". I don't know
>>if making
>>somone from such a country able to download software from a
>>website could be
>>considered software exportation, but considering the technical
>>impossibility
>>to prevent it, i doubt Sun itself could claims to fulfill it.
> 
> 
> On the other hand it would be hard to prove that you exported it yourself to
> a banned country, and didn't provide it to a user in the continental US who
> then sent it abroad.
> It certainly seems unworkable in principle, and as a foreigner I wonder what
> the US lawmakers would consider to be adequate protection against
> downloading by evil foreigners.
> You can pretty much bet the farm that terrorists won't let licence
> conditions stop their plans.


Then again, you can pretty much bet the farm that they aren't using Java
anyways.  Terrorists that use encryption are likely to use more powerful
russian (FSU?) encryption suites.  They also are not interested in
development, or ease of use.  They are interested in weapons and causing
damage.


-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 - Benjamin Franklin


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: License issue (the come back)

[Danny Angus]

> The last point is the only real problem IMHO. Basically, it forbids to
> export software in "free world ennemy countries TM". I don't know
> if making
> somone from such a country able to download software from a
> website could be
> considered software exportation, but considering the technical
> impossibility
> to prevent it, i doubt Sun itself could claims to fulfill it.

On the other hand it would be hard to prove that you exported it yourself to
a banned country, and didn't provide it to a user in the continental US who
then sent it abroad.
It certainly seems unworkable in principle, and as a foreigner I wonder what
the US lawmakers would consider to be adequate protection against
downloading by evil foreigners.
You can pretty much bet the farm that terrorists won't let licence
conditions stop their plans.

d.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

License issue (the come back)

[Guillaume Rousse]

Hello.

They have been already *several* discussions about Sun proprietary APIs 
licenses, and more precisely about exact redistribution conditions. Current 
consensus in ASF, AFAIK, is that redistribution of crypto API (as jsse) is 
strictly forbidden, and redistribution of non-crypto APIS is not permitted 
with source code.

We (jpackage project, http://jpackage.sourceforge.net) contacted sun legal 
department to have an official response on this topic. We exposed our own 
practices, that is to provide a non-free section for all normal APIs with 
standard packages, and a non-distributable section for all crypto APIs and 
JDKs, with empty packages. The only response we had was: read the license 
carefully :-) (kind of RTFM, actually) 

So we did, and here is the result
non-free
jaasBCL + LDS
jaf BCL
javahelpBCL + LDR
javamailBCL + LDS
jaxpBCL + LDS
jdbc-stdext no license
jimiBCL + LDS
jms no license
jndino license
jta no license
jtopen  no package
jts BCL + LD
netbeans-java-extbinno license
resolverno license

non-distributable
javacc  ?
jsseBCL + LD
sun-jsdk1.3 BCL + LDS + LDR
sun-jsdk1.4 BCL + LDS + LDR
blackdown-jsdk1.3   BCL + LDS + LDR
ibm-jsdk1.3 ?

BCL means standard Binary Code License, which is the basic Sun Binary Code 
License for all software. Most java software add extra clauses, especially 
concerning redistribution, which are refered here as LDS  (License to 
distribute software), LRD (License to distribute  redistributables) and LD 
(License to distribute). Full citations of those clauses are included at the 
end of the message.
no license means "in current package" only, and ? means uncertainity.

My own interpretation follows:
1) There is nothing in any of those license making click-through procedure 
mandatory
2) There is no point having jsse and jts in different section are they are 
subject to exactly the same conditions
3) The US export laws enforcement clause is part of BCL, which apply to *all* 
packages, not only to crypto packages.
4) LDR refers to a a "distributable" section in README file, that was not 
found either in javahelp nor in JDKs

The last point is the only real problem IMHO. Basically, it forbids to  
export software in "free world ennemy countries TM". I don't know if making 
somone from such a country able to download software from a website could be 
considered software exportation, but considering the technical impossibility 
to prevent it, i doubt Sun itself could claims to fulfill it.

Apart this problem, i still don't see what prevent distribution of all 
packages having at least one of those additional distribution clause (LD or 
LDS), as long as original license is preserved. LDR with a non-existent 
distributable section is not acceptable here.
However, IANAL, and as I know ASF people have already stepped onto this 
problem, i would like your opinion here.

Thanks for your help.

LDS
2. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, including, but not limited to Section 3 (Java (TM)
Technology Restrictions) of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a
non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and distribute
the Software in binary code form only, provided that (i) you distribute the
Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the
sole purpose of  running, your Java applets or applications ("Programs"),
(ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to the Software,
(iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to replace any
component(s) of the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any
proprietary legends or notices contained in the Software, (v) you only
distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's
interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi)
you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any
damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including
attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by
any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any
and all Programs and/or Software.

LD
1. License to Distribute. Sun grants you a non-exclusive,
non-transferable, royalty-free, limited license to (a) use
the binary form of the Software for the sole purpose of
designing, developing and testing your JavaTM applets and
applications intended to run on a compatible Java
environment (the "Programs"), provided that the Programs
add significant and primary functionality to the Software,
and (b) reproduce and distribute the binary form of the
Software through multiple tiers of distribution provided
that you: (i) distribute the Software complete and
unmodified; (ii) do not distribute additional software
int

Re: JakartaOne

[Endre Stølsvik]

On 11 Mar 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

| On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 05:19, GOMEZ Henri wrote:
| > Any luck that a JakartaOne will ever be in Europe,
| > even better in Paris ?
| >
|
| Heck from the East Coast US right now its cheaper to fly/stay in Europe
| than the west coast (go figure).  For kicks I investigated hotel prices
| in the area WHOA!  For about 2-$300 right now I can get to Munich
| (highly suggest for a get together).

Live like a backpacker! Stay at Green Tortoise or something! $15-20/night.
Pick up a backpackers handbook, and you'll find lots of such options..
Then, of course, it ain't exactly fantastic comfort, and the bedbugs might
even bite! ;)

;-D

Endre.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: JakartaOne : Plan

[Endre Stølsvik]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

| On 3/12/02 6:36 AM, "Endre Stølsvik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
| >
| > | Enough people have expressed interest in Jakarta One that I believe we
| > | should go forward, at least as a social gathering so we can see what we all
| > | look like.
| >
| > Do you guys know about "JBossOne"? It's apparently going to be located
| > "right across the road from JavaOne".. I'm not sure though, and I haven't
| > read all messages here lately, so it might have come up already..
|
| Yes - they are having it during the day, as I understand it.  I was hoping a
| few of them (or all of them :)  would come and join us - since they are
| giving talks at JBossOne, it might be nice to see if they would repeat a
| talk or two at JakartaOne.

You actually mentioned it in the same message I was replying to! How
observant of me! ;)


-- 
Mvh,
Endre


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: JakartaOne : Plan

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 3/12/02 6:36 AM, "Endre Stølsvik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> 
> | Enough people have expressed interest in Jakarta One that I believe we
> | should go forward, at least as a social gathering so we can see what we all
> | look like.
> 
> Do you guys know about "JBossOne"? It's apparently going to be located
> "right across the road from JavaOne".. I'm not sure though, and I haven't
> read all messages here lately, so it might have come up already..

Yes - they are having it during the day, as I understand it.  I was hoping a
few of them (or all of them :)  would come and join us - since they are
giving talks at JBossOne, it might be nice to see if they would repeat a
talk or two at JakartaOne.


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting
POC lives!


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: JakartaOne : Plan

[Endre Stølsvik]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

| Enough people have expressed interest in Jakarta One that I believe we
| should go forward, at least as a social gathering so we can see what we all
| look like.

Do you guys know about "JBossOne"? It's apparently going to be located
"right across the road from JavaOne".. I'm not sure though, and I haven't
read all messages here lately, so it might have come up already..

-- 
Mvh,
Endre


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: