You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org> on 2001/01/04 07:24:29 UTC
Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
Ug.
Checked over the archives and didn't see this
Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary
to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML
parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of
Freedom :(.
This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX..
Kevin
--
Kevin A. Burton ( burton@apache.org, burton@openprivacy.org, burtonator@acm.org )
Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596
The worse thing in life is to fall short!
counter-intelligence Ortega kibo Panama [Hello to all my fans in domestic
surveillance] PLO fissionable $400 million in gold bullion Waco, Texas terrorist
security KGB plutonium smuggle NSA
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
Posted by Rajiv Mordani <Ra...@eng.sun.com>.
The parser being used is crimson which is based on ProjectX and is also
under xml.apache. JAXP is an API that is implemented by Xerces also.. So
if you prefer to use that nobody is stopping you from doing so... That's
where JAXP is good to use since you don't have to change code when you
change parsers...
- Rajiv
--
:wq
On 3 Jan 2001, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
>
> Ug.
>
> Checked over the archives and didn't see this
>
> Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and proprietary
> to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML
> parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of
> Freedom :(.
>
> This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX..
>
> Kevin
>
> --
> Kevin A. Burton ( burton@apache.org, burton@openprivacy.org, burtonator@acm.org )
> Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596
>
> The worse thing in life is to fall short!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> counter-intelligence Ortega kibo Panama [Hello to all my fans in domestic
> surveillance] PLO fissionable $400 million in gold bullion Waco, Texas terrorist
> security KGB plutonium smuggle NSA
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???(proprietary==evil)
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/8/01 6:21 AM, "Christopher K. St. John" <cs...@quik.com> wrote:
> The JAXP license is a legitimate pain-in-the-a** for those
> of us without special dispensations (which evidently includes
> projects that would like to reuse bits of Tomcat code, but
> can't)
Actually, the JAXP 1.0 license wrt source is a pita. However, the newest
license on the JAXP 1.0 RI download makes it a lot less of a pita wrt to
redistribution of jaxp.jar. It says (in the supplemental terms):
>>> 2. License to Distribute. Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable,
>>> royalty-free limited license to reproduce and distribute the classes
>>> Java(TM) API for XML parsing classes, in binary form, contained in the
>>> Software in the archive files "jaxp.jar" and "parser.jar" ("XML JAR Files")
>>> to third party end users solely as a component of your Programs provided
>>> that you: (a)(i) distribute the XML JAR Files complete and unmodified in
>>> their original Java Archive file; and do not distribute additional software
>>> intended to replace any component(s) of the XML JAR Files; or, alternatively
>>> (ii) distribute the archive file "jaxp.jar" without the archive file
>>> "parser.jar" but with a parser implementation that is compliant with the
>>> JAXP specification and do not distribute additional software intended to
>>> replace any components of the archive file "jaxp.jar"; and (b) do not remove
>>> or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained in or on the Software;
>>> (c) only distribute the XML JAR! Files pursuant to a license agreement that
>>> protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in the
>>> Agreement; (d) agree to incorporate the most current version of the XML JAR
>>> Files that was available from Sun no later than 180 days prior to each
>>> production release of your Program; and (e) agree to indemnify, hold
>>> harmless, and defend Sun and its licensors from and against any claims or
>>> lawsuits, including attorney's fees, that arise or result from the use or
>>> distribution of any and all Programs.
So, the tricky part is that "distribution pursuant to a license agreement"
-- IANAL, but what I'd do in this case is in the README file put in a
statement that says that jaxp.jar is being redisted according to this
license and leave it at that.
IOW:
$DIR/jaxp.jar
$DIR/JAXP_LICENSE (containing the license from Sun)
With a blurb in the README that says jaxp.jar is subject to that license.
You should be set.
I'm also working to get this much more human readable in the next rev.
> Or are you saying that it's ok to, for example: take some of
> the Tomcat web.xml/servlet.xml loader code, and reuse it in
> a non-Apache product that does a fancy GUI interface? The Apache
> license allows (encourages!) this, but the JAXP license does
> not, right?
What I'm saying is that you can redist the jaxp.jar file containing the
classes of the implementation. That's what we need to be doing in the Apache
tree anyway since we don't have a source redistribution license.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???(proprietary==evil)
Posted by "Christopher K. St. John" <cs...@quik.com>.
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>
> On 1/3/01 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org> wrote:
>
> > Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and
> > proprietary
>
> Then why are you using Java which is composed of code most of which isn't
> under a free license
>
There are non-Sun implementations of Java, some of which are
Free or Open. (I kinda suspect you knew that :-)
The JAXP license is a legitimate pain-in-the-a** for those
of us without special dispensations (which evidently includes
projects that would like to reuse bits of Tomcat code, but
can't)
Or are you saying that it's ok to, for example: take some of
the Tomcat web.xml/servlet.xml loader code, and reuse it in
a non-Apache product that does a fancy GUI interface? The Apache
license allows (encourages!) this, but the JAXP license does
not, right?
-cks
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
Posted by "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net> writes:
> On 1/3/01 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org> wrote:
>
> > Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and
> > proprietary
> > to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML
> > parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of
> > Freedom :(.
>
> Then why are you using Java which is composed of code most of which isn't
> under a free license and is proprietary to either Sun and/or its partners?
> Is that worth the loss of Freedom?
... spending 15% of my spare cycles working on GNU Classpath, GNU Java
Compiler. Pretty soon SUN will just be another irrelevant company :) GCC 3.0
will ship with GCJ and should be about JDK 1.1 compliant :) yeah baby!
> Having a problem with Project X doesn't mean scrapping the use of JAXP --
> esp since two implementations of the parser and the impl of the transform
> engine is under the ASF license. Or should we just hard code the
> dependencies and not let people choose which parser to use?
There is an OSS JAXP implementation at oje.sourceforge.net. I was just pointed
to it today so :)...
Kevin
- --
Kevin A. Burton ( burton@apache.org, burton@openprivacy.org, burtonator@acm.org )
Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power. -Abraham Lincoln
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt
iD8DBQE6WnuYAwM6xb2dfE0RAh0qAJwJrmbF5XNmOCPiEHe4DuMxIYl6uQCgqK80
xNIhesvt+KFpDvSP5CRt8Wc=
=UtsF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ft. Bragg [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance] colonel Peking BATF
quiche fissionable jihad Legion of Doom North Korea Cocaine Nazi domestic
disruption nuclear ammunition
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???
(proprietary==evil)
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/3/01 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org> wrote:
> Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and
> proprietary
> to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML
> parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of
> Freedom :(.
Then why are you using Java which is composed of code most of which isn't
under a free license and is proprietary to either Sun and/or its partners?
Is that worth the loss of Freedom?
Having a problem with Project X doesn't mean scrapping the use of JAXP --
esp since two implementations of the parser and the impl of the transform
engine is under the ASF license. Or should we just hard code the
dependencies and not let people choose which parser to use?
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
Posted by "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com> writes:
> on 1/3/2001 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org> wrote:
>
> > Ug.
> >
> > Checked over the archives and didn't see this
> >
> > Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and
> > proprietary
> > to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML
> > parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of
> > Freedom :(.
>
> JAXP itself is just a parser API that the parser implements. Nothing big
> about that. I wouldn't fret it. It is also under the JCP so that is
> supposedly somewhat OSS in that if you bitch loudly enough to enough people,
> you will get let in. Well maybe.
It is not even close. Man... must be great being in the JCP and having all your
intellectual property become SUNs :)
> > This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX..
>
> Actually, Tomcat 4.x is using Crimson as its parser by default. It is OSS.
> Maybe you should use that instead.
>
> <http://xml.apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/xml-contrib/crimson/>
Ah.. cool. good to see.
> p.s. Kevin, it is nice to see that you have finally stopping the PGP signing
> of your messages, that was so annoying, however now your .sig has about 10
> lines of additional crap at the bottom. Maybe you could compress it a bit.
> :-)
no... just toggled it for a second. :) Jon. If you used a *decent* e-mail
client you wouldn't even see the PGP data :). Time to stop using a Microsoft
product and upgrade to gnus :)
Microsoft-Outlook-Express-Macintosh-Edition/5.02.2022
Kevin
- --
Kevin A. Burton ( burton@apache.org, burton@openprivacy.org, burtonator@acm.org )
Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596
Intellectual property does not exist! Get over it!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt
iD8DBQE6WnzbAwM6xb2dfE0RAlIkAKCy8JksWIPIrMZM2C2qoFfv5m/YDwCfWe1T
dJSocbBlhquiU2vGXRjAArA=
=kBVb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mossad ammunition SDI security radar munitions PLO FSF explosion DES AK-47
Clinton Kennedy World Trade Center KGB
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX??? (proprietary==evil)
Posted by Rajiv Mordani <Ra...@eng.sun.com>.
--
:wq
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 1/3/2001 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org> wrote:
>
> > Ug.
> >
> > Checked over the archives and didn't see this
> >
> > Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and
> > proprietary
> > to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML
> > parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of
> > Freedom :(.
>
> JAXP itself is just a parser API that the parser implements. Nothing big
> about that. I wouldn't fret it. It is also under the JCP so that is
> supposedly somewhat OSS in that if you bitch loudly enough to enough people,
> you will get let in. Well maybe.
>
> > This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX..
>
> Actually, Tomcat 4.x is using Crimson as its parser by default. It is OSS.
> Maybe you should use that instead.
>
> <http://xml.apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/xml-contrib/crimson/>
The latest version of the parser is infact
http://xml.apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/xml-crimson.
It's been moved from the contrib area..
- Rajiv
>
>
> p.s. Kevin, it is nice to see that you have finally stopping the PGP signing
> of your messages, that was so annoying, however now your .sig has about 10
> lines of additional crap at the bottom. Maybe you could compress it a bit.
> :-)
>
> -jon
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???
(proprietary==evil)
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/3/2001 10:24 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" <bu...@relativity.yi.org> wrote:
> Ug.
>
> Checked over the archives and didn't see this
>
> Why are we using JAXP and ProjectX which are both Closed Source and
> proprietary
> to SUN Microsystems. This is a Bad Thing. We already have an awesome XML
> parser and I would say just *drop* the abstraction... not worth the loss of
> Freedom :(.
JAXP itself is just a parser API that the parser implements. Nothing big
about that. I wouldn't fret it. It is also under the JCP so that is
supposedly somewhat OSS in that if you bitch loudly enough to enough people,
you will get let in. Well maybe.
> This came up because I am having problems with ProjectX..
Actually, Tomcat 4.x is using Crimson as its parser by default. It is OSS.
Maybe you should use that instead.
<http://xml.apache.org/websrc/cvsweb.cgi/xml-contrib/crimson/>
p.s. Kevin, it is nice to see that you have finally stopping the PGP signing
of your messages, that was so annoying, however now your .sig has about 10
lines of additional crap at the bottom. Maybe you could compress it a bit.
:-)
-jon