I guess I'm wondering what the legal definition of reverse-engineer
means. To me that means disassemble. If I just write something that
happens to have the same interface, inputs and outputs, to me that
doesn't qualify as reverse-engineer but maybe thats just me. When my
5 year old stepson
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
BTW. Define: release ;-)
That sounds like former persident Bill Clinton with his
define sexual relations. Such a question insinuates
guilt, and that you are trying to find a letter of the
law loop hole to be clever about.
Lawers are like
acoliver wrote:
I do. I was just curious.
Have you a licence for that? :-) It's a mad world.
Conor
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry for my tangent - it's clear that on legal matters, I should just
get the heck outta Dodge and let someone with more patience work on it.
8-{
I've forwarded a link (with threading) to your (Conor's) message to the
xml PMC so they should be aware of this licensing issue with JAXP and
So could a non-tainted person through black box testing produce their
own JAXP clone?
-Andy
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 19:55, Conor MacNeill wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
I think what Peter said was that you can read the
BTW. Define: release ;-)
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 19:55, Conor MacNeill wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote:
I think what Peter said was that you can read the spec only if you
agree with the licence, and that prevents you
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:03, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
So could a non-tainted person through black box testing produce their
own JAXP clone?
I don't see how as they need access to Suns IP someway and there is no way to
get a license to do that. Ie can't use spec without being tainted and can't
-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2002 1:03 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: RE: LICENSE in .jar files
So could a non-tainted person through black box testing produce their
own JAXP clone?
-Andy
I don't know
-Original Message-
From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2002 1:10 PM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: RE: LICENSE in .jar files
BTW. Define: release ;-)
I guess it would be up to a court to define release :-) I don't know what
it means
On Thu, 21 Mar 2002, Conor MacNeill wrote:
I don't know. IANAL. We really do need a lawyer. Anyway, in my view, you
would not be able to legally run such a reverse engineered clone on a Sun
You have a lawyer - or rather - the PMC has access to those beast. This is
being worked on (even today
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
on 3/14/02 6:09 PM, Kevin A. Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be a good protocol to put a LICENSE file in
.jar files under META-INF ?
Sure.
*poof* it is now done in all of the Jakarta projects.
Don't you like magic like that?
-jon
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL
On 3/14/02 9:17 PM, Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 3/14/02 6:09 PM, Kevin A. Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be a good protocol to put a LICENSE file in
.jar files under META-INF ?
Sure.
*poof* it is now done in all of the Jakarta projects.
Don't you like
On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 22:16, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On 3/14/02 9:17 PM, Jon Scott Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 3/14/02 6:09 PM, Kevin A. Burton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would it be a good protocol to put a LICENSE file in
.jar files under META-INF ?
Sure.
*poof* it
14 matches
Mail list logo
