You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com> on 2006/02/02 03:00:18 UTC
License issues with commonj
We have a patch with an implementation of the commonj timer spec.
I'd like to get this into svn soon. One issue is straightening out
the license provisions for the api and implementations. AFAICT
commonj is a joint effort of BEA and IBM.
The bea website discussing commonj is:
http://dev2dev.bea.com/wlplatform/commonj/twm.html
After the download links it states:
This specification is being made available on an RF basis (as
detailed in the Copyright notice of the specification); therefore,
BEA does not require an implementation license. If you prefer,
however, you may request a license from BEA to implement the
specification.
The specification pdf says:
Fwd: License issues with commonj
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
I sent this earlier with some non-text inclusions, and haven't seen
it get through. I'm trying again typing out some of the quoted pdf
contents.
Begin forwarded message:
> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> Date: February 1, 2006 6:00:18 PM PST
> To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: License issues with commonj
>
> We have a patch with an implementation of the commonj timer spec.
> I'd like to get this into svn soon. One issue is straightening out
> the license provisions for the api and implementations. AFAICT
> commonj is a joint effort of BEA and IBM.
>
> The bea website discussing commonj is:
> http://dev2dev.bea.com/wlplatform/commonj/twm.html
>
> After the download links it states:
>
> This specification is being made available on an RF basis (as
> detailed in the Copyright notice of the specification); therefore,
> BEA does not require an implementation license. If you prefer,
> however, you may request a license from BEA to implement the
> specification.
>
> The specification pdf says:
This specification may change before final release and you are
cautioned against relying on the content of this specification. IBM
and BEA are currently soliciting your contributions and suggestions.
Licenses are available for the purposes of feedback and (optionally)
for implementation.
>
> and earlier:
IBM and BEA (collectively, the "Authors") agree to grant you a
royalty-free license, under reasonable, non-discriminatory terms and
conditions to patents that they deem necessary to implement the Timer
and Work Manager for Application Servers Specification.
>
>
> There is a link to a zip of source code for the api. These files
> contain the following license statement:
>
> /* Timer for Application Servers
> * Version 1.1
> * Licensed Materials - Property of BEA and IBM
> *
> * © Copyright BEA Systems, Inc. and International Business Machines
> Corp 2003-2004. All rights reserved.
> */
>
>
> My theory about this is that we might not need a license to write
> our own api classes from the javadoc, or to write implementations
> of the api, but that we can't simply check in the existing source
> code without some documentation/grants from IBM and BEA.
>
> Since there are only about 14 classes in the api it would
> undoubtedly be much quicker to simply write out the classes from
> the javadoc than seek documentations/grants.
>
> I assume that a patch to a jira issue containing apache licensed
> api classes, with permission granted to apache for inclusion,
> supported by CLA and CCLA, would also be fine.
>
> My interpretation of the statements about licensing are that we
> don't need a license. However I'm not at all confident I've
> interpreted this properly. How can we proceed?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>
Re: License issues with commonj
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
My personal preference is to have all of our spec APIs available in
source form from the geronimo-specs tree, so I'd much rather just
type them in.
-dain
On Feb 2, 2006, at 2:07 AM, Andy Piper wrote:
> At 06:59 AM 2/2/2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> I've also discussed this issue regarding the lack of any
>> recognizable license for their code w/ BEA and IBM, and they have
>> made it very clear that they will provide one if needed.
>>
>> So the question is, type or wait for license? I say "type"
>
> I believe that it was never our intention that the java API should
> be encumbered in a way that raises these issues and certainly not
> our intention that people would have to type in the code from the
> javadoc in order to circumvent the issues.
>
> My understanding was that we have already resolved this internally
> (and hence why we are offering help in implementing the APIs), but
> I will double check.
>
> Thanks
>
> andy
Re: License issues with commonj
Posted by Andy Piper <an...@bea.com>.
At 06:59 AM 2/2/2006, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>I've also discussed this issue regarding the lack of any
>recognizable license for their code w/ BEA and IBM, and they have
>made it very clear that they will provide one if needed.
>
>So the question is, type or wait for license? I say "type"
I believe that it was never our intention that the java API should be
encumbered in a way that raises these issues and certainly not our
intention that people would have to type in the code from the javadoc
in order to circumvent the issues.
My understanding was that we have already resolved this internally
(and hence why we are offering help in implementing the APIs), but I
will double check.
Thanks
andy
Re: License issues with commonj
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
I actually did read the spec and type in the classes once. (I think it
was for the timer spec...?)
I believe that if we do that, we have no problems because of the
copyright notice in the spec.
I've also discussed this issue regarding the lack of any recognizable
license for their code w/ BEA and IBM, and they have made it very clear
that they will provide one if needed.
So the question is, type or wait for license? I say "type"
geir
David Jencks wrote:
> We have a patch with an implementation of the commonj timer spec. I'd
> like to get this into svn soon. One issue is straightening out the
> license provisions for the api and implementations. AFAICT commonj is a
> joint effort of BEA and IBM.
>
> The bea website discussing commonj is:
> http://dev2dev.bea.com/wlplatform/commonj/twm.html
>
> After the download links it states:
>
> This specification is being made available on an RF basis (as detailed
> in the Copyright notice of the specification); therefore, BEA does not
> require an implementation license. If you prefer, however, you may
> request a license from BEA to implement the specification.
>
> The specification pdf says:
>
>
> and earlier:
>
>
> (sorry about the pictures, I can't figure out how to copy out of a pdf
> otherwise)
>
> There is a link to a zip of source code for the api. These files
> contain the following license statement:
>
> /* Timer for Application Servers
> * Version 1.1
> * Licensed Materials - Property of BEA and IBM
> *
> * © Copyright BEA Systems, Inc. and International Business Machines Corp
> 2003-2004. All rights reserved.
> */
>
>
> My theory about this is that we might not need a license to write our
> own api classes from the javadoc, or to write implementations of the
> api, but that we can't simply check in the existing source code without
> some documentation/grants from IBM and BEA.
>
> Since there are only about 14 classes in the api it would undoubtedly be
> much quicker to simply write out the classes from the javadoc than seek
> documentations/grants.
>
> I assume that a patch to a jira issue containing apache licensed api
> classes, with permission granted to apache for inclusion, supported by
> CLA and CCLA, would also be fine.
>
> My interpretation of the statements about licensing are that we don't
> need a license. However I'm not at all confident I've interpreted this
> properly. How can we proceed?
>
> thanks
> david jencks
>
>
>