Re: LICENSE in .jar files

[Paul Libbrecht]

Well,

This may work if:

1> the license applies to the redistributed version
2> or this license is provided only as a "proof of purchase" (that is a 
receipt that allows ASF to distribute this) but something more has to be 
indicated, that is, how to get it for yourself so as to be able to 
redistribute it

The problem is the following: I'm still expecting some advice from our 
lawyers but I understand currently that ALL Sun licenses are 
non-transferable. As such, anyone in the name of ASF may include this in 
one of the ASF packages but it does give no rights to redistribute to 
anyone that receives this (e.g. me downloading Ant) (*1).

So that: folks receiving such a package should be indicated that they 
can redistribute Apache software but not Sun software and, if they want 
to use Sun software, that they should pick their version at Sun's site.

(this also involves that Sun maintains such links alive, it is not the 
case of Jaxp 1.1... until we're sure they do this, it may make sense to 
URGE downloaders to get their copy right now)

After good thoughts, I feel this a bit like a trap as for many things, 
there is no way to get rid of Sun interface class files.
A complete readme, giving pointers to download your own lawful version 
of jaxp.jar, would also include how to live without jaxp.jar, if this is 
possible.
Getting rid of servlet.jar, for example, seems way harder...

So that... license in .jar files ?? Maybe, but with a readme indicating 
that one is bound by the conditions of this license even though one has 
never read it...

Paul

(*1) Actually, I am sure a dreaded crazy guy may even say that the 
action of cvs-update is already a redistribution so that another person, 
maybe not lawfully member of ASF would be prohibited to build a 
distribution

PS: JDOM beta 8 (see http://www.jdom.org) just did it almost as you say, 
they now have licenses and pointers to original projects, they did not 
say anything about redistribution though...



On Vendredi, mars 15, 2002, at 03:09 , Kevin A. Burton wrote:
> Jus thinking out loud.  Would it be a good protocol to put a LICENSE 
> file in
> .jar files under META-INF ?
>
> Specifically with the JCP stuff and some JAR files that come from SUN 
> and can't be redistributed.
>
> Thanks.  Comments appreciated.
>
> Kevin


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

Re: Base64 anywhere ?

[Paul Libbrecht]

Thanks, thanks, thanks,

That's a flood !

Paul


On Vendredi, mars 15, 2002, at 12:17 , Waldhoff, Rodney wrote:

>> There is also one in Batik, JXTA, Catalina, Apache SOAP,
>> Apache Xerces, Axis, Commons, Talon and Freenet.
>
> Also Slide, Commons-HttpClient, etc.  Moreover many of them have some 
> direct
> cut-and-paste relationship.
>
> For what it's worth, the commons-codec package
> (http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/jakarta-commons-sandbox/codec/) is 
> intended
> avoid having so many flavors or having to "grab" a Base64 implementation
> from an otherwise unrelated framework or application.


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

Base64 anywhere ?

[Paul Libbrecht]

Hi Jakarta group,

Since a while the XML-RPC project of Apache is looking for Base64 
coder/decoder. Currently one under LGPL is used but there must certainly 
be some class in Jakarta project that has such a class.

Does anyone know this ?

Thanks in advance.

Paul


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

About third-party software in ASF distributions

[Paul Libbrecht]

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 developerThe ActiveMath project =
  = http://www.activemath.org/~paul   [EMAIL PROTECTED] =
  =


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>