Re: Re: License issue (the come back)

>On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:05:41 0100 Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote. Correct me if I'm wrong but if you break US law while in France without breaking any French laws and no US laws covered by extradition treaties, I don't think you care unless you enter the US physically (and have tick

Re: License issue (the come back)

Ainsi parlait [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > > >Ok, I didn't know that - and I bet many other people are in the same > > >situation. > > > > > >If anyone can confirm this with a professional, then I think it should > > >be displayed pretty clearly on a visible page

RE: License issue (the come back)

> -Original Message- > From: Guillaume Rousse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] > I know they use such kind of filtering based on your domain > name. It also > means just using a private indirection, as you did, or public > redirect > service as anonymiser.com bypass it easily. > So we

Re: License issue (the come back)

Ainsi parlait Santiago Gala : [..] > FYI: Some time ago, I was forbidden to download a java package because > my ISP did not have reverse DNS address mapping properly setup, even > though I'm in Spain, not a "free world enemy", AFAIK. The message I got > was something like "we could not assess you

RE: License issue (the come back)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Steve Downey wrote: > You chose a definition that suits your argument. In the industry, the > definition is usually more like: I just used google. > "That which is established by authority as a rule for the measure of > quantity, extent, value, or quality; esp., the origina

Re: License issue (the come back)

on 3/14/02 10:33 AM, "Steve Downey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tomcat, on the other hand, is a standard. No. It is not. Tomcat is implementations of 'standards' that Sun defines. For example, Catalina's implementation of

RE: License issue (the come back)

> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 12:07 PM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: Re: License issue (the come back) > > > > Please, not another standard body !!! > > Coul

Re: License issue (the come back)

On 14 Mar 2002, Pete Chown wrote: > Peter Donald wrote: > > > ie If we could set up a decent process and work with other standards > > organizations (ECMA, IEEE, W3C), have a relatively formal > > participation contract (and thus *safe* from eyes of corporate/IP > > lawyers) and finally make all

RE: License issue (the come back)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, GOMEZ Henri wrote: > >Ok, I didn't know that - and I bet many other people are in the same > >situation. > > > >If anyone can confirm this with a professional, then I think it should > >be displayed pretty clearly on a visible page, and we should find > >alternative open s

Re: License issue (the come back)

Peter Donald wrote: > ie If we could set up a decent process and work with other standards > organizations (ECMA, IEEE, W3C), have a relatively formal > participation contract (and thus *safe* from eyes of corporate/IP > lawyers) and finally make allies of organisations like IBM, Apple > and whoe

RE: License issue (the come back)

>Ok, I didn't know that - and I bet many other people are in the same >situation. > >If anyone can confirm this with a professional, then I think it should >be displayed pretty clearly on a visible page, and we should find >alternative open standards to use. jpackage need this kind of informa

Re: License issue (the come back)

Guillaume Rousse wrote: >Hello. > (big snip) > >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 softwa

Re: License issue (the come back)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 07:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > > They still include the jaxp source code, in xml-commons. > > > But it's a clean-room implementation, made directly from the spec. > > > > The "directly from the spec" is where the problem lies. It

RE: License issue (the come back)

> > -Mensaje original- > > De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Enviado el: miércoles 13 de marzo de 2002 17:04 > > Para: Jakarta General List > > Asunto: Re: License issue (the come back) > > [snip] > > > AFAIK ( and again do

Re: License issue (the come back)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > They still include the jaxp source code, in xml-commons. > > But it's a clean-room implementation, made directly from the spec. > > The "directly from the spec" is where the problem lies. It uses suns IP and > thus must the TCK. We don't and thus we

Re: License issue (the come back)

On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > > Correct - but even packages that presumably have IBM (and sun?) people > > working on them have questionable legalities. Take xerces (or crimson), > > at one stage they included the jaxp source code

RE: License issue (the come back)

.. > I remember reading somewhere about some fair use of published > information and books, but didn't know that this can be restricted. > I should start reading the prefaces of the books, maybe they'll > start including a licence and 'if you disagree with the terms, you > must burn the book imed

RE: License issue (the come back)

> Does not the DMCA expressly prohibit reverse-engineering? Or is it just > legaleze, not applicable in the real world? The DMCA is about circumventing copy right protecting devices or constructs. Implementing a library based on a public description of an API; where this description is obtaine

RE: License issue (the come back)

pliers. > > > So it looks like clean room uncertified products that implement JMX are OK. > They are not for J2EE. According to these licenses, in any case. > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >

RE: License issue (the come back)

om uncertified products that implement JMX are OK. They are not for J2EE. According to these licenses, in any case. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 11:04 AM > To: Jakarta General List > Subject: R

RE: License issue (the come back)

That's good news. Thanks a lot, Alex. > -Mensaje original- > De: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Enviado el: miércoles 13 de marzo de 2002 18:52 > Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Asunto: Re: License issue (the come back) > > > on 3/13/

Re: License issue (the come back)

on 3/13/02 9:31 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Implementing a published API/specification have nothing to do with > reverse-engineering and I don't think it is prohibited. Nope. It isn't. I re-implemented a BEA specification (dbKona) based on their publicly available javado

RE: License issue (the come back)

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro wrote: > Does not the DMCA expressly prohibit reverse-engineering? Or is it just > legaleze, not applicable in the real world? Implementing a published API/specification have nothing to do with reverse-engineering and I don't think it is prohib

RE: License issue (the come back)

ara: Jakarta General List > Asunto: Re: License issue (the come back) [snip] > AFAIK ( and again don't take my word for it, call your lawyer > :-), clean > room implementations based on a published spec are perfectly > legal. Probably the name/logo is protected, but saying that

Re: License issue (the come back)

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Peter Donald wrote: > Correct - but even packages that presumably have IBM (and sun?) people > working on them have questionable legalities. Take xerces (or crimson), at > one stage they included the jaxp source code and even if it doesn't anymore > it surely links against

RE: License issue (the come back)

> -Original Message- > From: Peter Donald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] [...] > I presume there is some form of implied consent/licensing or > somethin gthat > may hold up if it ever went to court but even then I really > dislike the fact > that we have to rely on the good will of a compa

Re: License issue (the come back)

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 mos

Re: License issue (the come back)

Ainsi parlait 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 ? But the first one is: try [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: License issue (the come back)

Ainsi parlait [EMAIL PROTECTED] : > > 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 bundle

RE: License issue (the come back)

... > >- 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" Two things - the mailing list [EMAIL PROTEC

Re: License issue (the come back)

Ainsi parlait 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 > s

RE: License issue (the come back)

>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 > Ye

RE: License issue (the come back)

> >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 >

Re: License issue (the come back)

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 distr

Re: License issue (the come back)

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 binar

Re: License issue (the come back)

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 distri

Re: License issue (the come back)

> 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

Re: License issue (the come back)

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

RE: License issue (the come back)

>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

Re: License issue (the come back)

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

Re: License issue (the come back)

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 consid

RE: License issue (the come back)

> 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