You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@maven.apache.org by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> on 2003/01/09 04:30:59 UTC
Re: [Fwd: [peter@realityforge.org: Re: Redistribution of javax
activation, mail and transaction]]
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 18:15, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Greg's clearly right. Can somebody take ownership of building a plan to
> correct this?
Yes, I can make the the an Apache box the primary place the Maven
distribution comes from.
> Ibiblio can certainly be a mirror. But in no circumstances should the
> ASF be in a position of being perceived as blessing the redistribution
> of code under the Sun Microsystems, Inc. Binary Code License Agreement
> in ways that are in violation of that license.
Is there any one we can ask at Sun for an official exception? In the
meantime I will start work to remove the JARs. It just seems ridiculous
that crypto code can be redistributed but the activation JAR can't. I
mean Sun obviously tacitly acknowledges the redistribution of this JAR
because they never did anything when we had it in our repositories for
eons or do anything to stop the N projects that keep it in CVS on
SourceForge. I certainly don't want to get anyone's knickers in a knot,
it just seems like it's one of the JARs that is tacitly sanctioned. One
of those effort things. Nobody really wants to go through the motions of
changing the license because no one really cares.
Is there anyway I can be put in contact with someone. It really throws a
big fat monkey wrench in trying to build anything easily. Or can I sick
Geir on someone?
I certainly don't want to be seen as having a blatant disregard for the
law so I will do what's necessary, but I would like to try and fight for
redistribution.
Off hand do you know if it's something that I can reimplement without
any legal hassles?
Or could we have a click-through license handler? Would we be allowed to
do what Netbeans does? When it needs JARs that require user interaction
it pops up a little dialog. We can certainly do the same. Again, is
there someone I can talk to? This functionality I could certainly
implement to make building easier for users.
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
Re: [Fwd: [peter@realityforge.org: Re: Redistribution of javax
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> Have a second repository, which is not officially apache sanctioned
> and contains all the jars. Tell people in clear words how they can add
> this second repository to their build.properties. But _ship_ without
> this second repository added as default.
I am not thrilled with the notion of a "license laundering scheme",
whereby jars with problematic license are placed "offshore" so that we
are not held liable. In my mind, what you are describing is *worse*
from a legal perspective, at least now we can say *OOPS* and argue that
there was no intent to circumvent.
What we should be doing is (1) switching to acceptable alternatives
(MX4J vs JMX), and (2) pushing back to Sun on the license.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [Fwd: [peter@realityforge.org: Re: Redistribution of javax
Posted by "Henning P. Schmiedehausen" <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com> writes:
>Is there any one we can ask at Sun for an official exception? In the
>meantime I will start work to remove the JARs. It just seems ridiculous
Make it possible to have multiple remote repositories. Resurrect the
"non-distributeable.jars" file. Put everything minus activation, mail etc.
and the non-distributeable file on the apache box.
Have a second repository, which is not officially apache sanctioned
and contains all the jars. Tell people in clear words how they can add
this second repository to their build.properties. But _ship_ without
this second repository added as default.
Make maven look at the second repository if it can't find a file on
the first.
Surprise, surprise: You've just reimplemented the debian apt-get process.
This was discussed by some people long before the whole ibiblio
shebang. But ibiblio was considered the "more successful way to go".
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH hps@intermeta.de
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 info@intermeta.de
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20
Re: [Fwd: [peter@realityforge.org: Re: Redistribution of javax activation, mail and transaction]]
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:30, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Off hand do you know if it's something that I can reimplement without
> any legal hassles?
activation/mail weren't last time I checked and I can't recall either of them
going onto the list of "blessed" JSRs that are allowed to be reimplemented.
You may be able to poke Geir to see if he could get them added :) I believe
JMX is also a no-no but both tomcat and avalon link against MX4J ... so if
you could add jmx to the list when talk to Geir that would be great ;)
I know nothing about transaction ... but again Tomcat has been using a
reimplementation of that for a long time so if it was illegal ... well ... ;)
Also recall that Apache wrote and distributed the jaxp stuff for years in
violation of the JSR licenses ... many Sun employees were actually involved
in creating the violations ;) ... so I am not sure how worried Sun is about
this .. but I guess it is better to be safe than sorry.
> Or could we have a click-through license handler?
That should be doable - in particular I think it handles the nasty clause
"only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects
Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement"
Then again - IANAL but it *seems* to me that a popup requiring user to agree
to license should be acceptable.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*----------------------------------------------------*
| "the mother of idiots is always pregnant." |
*----------------------------------------------------*
Re: [Fwd: [peter@realityforge.org: Re: Redistribution of javax
activation, mail and transaction]]
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> Is there anyway I can be put in contact with someone. It really throws a
> big fat monkey wrench in trying to build anything easily. Or can I sick
> Geir on someone?
It never hurts to ask, and Geir is the right person to start with.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [Fwd: [peter@realityforge.org: Re: Redistribution of javax
activation, mail and transaction]]
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> Is there anyway I can be put in contact with someone. It really throws a
> big fat monkey wrench in trying to build anything easily. Or can I sick
> Geir on someone?
It never hurts to ask, and Geir is the right person to start with.
- Sam Ruby
Re: [Fwd: [peter@realityforge.org: Re: Redistribution of javax activation, mail and transaction]]
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:30, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> Off hand do you know if it's something that I can reimplement without
> any legal hassles?
activation/mail weren't last time I checked and I can't recall either of them
going onto the list of "blessed" JSRs that are allowed to be reimplemented.
You may be able to poke Geir to see if he could get them added :) I believe
JMX is also a no-no but both tomcat and avalon link against MX4J ... so if
you could add jmx to the list when talk to Geir that would be great ;)
I know nothing about transaction ... but again Tomcat has been using a
reimplementation of that for a long time so if it was illegal ... well ... ;)
Also recall that Apache wrote and distributed the jaxp stuff for years in
violation of the JSR licenses ... many Sun employees were actually involved
in creating the violations ;) ... so I am not sure how worried Sun is about
this .. but I guess it is better to be safe than sorry.
> Or could we have a click-through license handler?
That should be doable - in particular I think it handles the nasty clause
"only distribute the Software subject to a license agreement that protects
Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement"
Then again - IANAL but it *seems* to me that a popup requiring user to agree
to license should be acceptable.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*----------------------------------------------------*
| "the mother of idiots is always pregnant." |
*----------------------------------------------------*