You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> on 2009/12/01 19:15:29 UTC
[Fwd: Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq
jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question]
Here's the response re: javax classes from legal-discuss
-Marshall
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq
jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:03:13 +0000
From: Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
References: <4B...@schor.com>
Marshall Schor wrote:
> The mx4j jar (used in many apache projects, including tomcat, geronimo,
> ActiveMQ) claims to be licensed under an apache style license (see:
> http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html ) .
>
> If you unzip the jar file, you find it has, in addition to mx4j classes,
> javax.management... classes that appear to be from the j2ee java
> distribution.
No, they are not from any other J2EE distribution.
The nice thing about open source is that you can look at the source
code. A quick peek shows that these classes have been implemented by the
mx4j team. This is something they are required to do in order to provide
a compliant JSR003 and JSR160 implementation.
Tomcat does something similar for the JSP and Servlet APIs, Geronimo
does it for all the J2EE APIs, etc
> Is it OK to distribute these javax... classes with this license?
Yes.
> ActiveMQ's main jar,apache-activemq-4.1.1.jar, for instance, includes
> javax.management... and javax.jms.... classes.
Again, as it is required to do in order to implement the spec. As long
as the source for those classes was developed by the ActiveMQ team (or
obtained under an appropriate license) - which I am sure it would have
been - then there is no issue.
What would not be OK, for example, would be copying the implementation
of any classes from the JBoss source tree.
> We are redistributing
> this main jar, as well as mx4j, as part of our project (uima-as), and
> are trying to get the proper license for this.
As long as you provide the proper entries in the LICENSE and NOTICE file
then you will be fine. That is the only thing you need to worry about
for those libraries.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [Fwd: Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq
jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question]
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
And a similar confirmation from ActiveMQ:
*Re: license for javax.jms... and javax.management.... classes
distributed with main activemq jar? Click to flag this post <javascript:
void Nabble.setFlag();>*
by Gary Tully <http://old.nabble.com/user/UserProfile.jtp?user=1114619>
Dec 01, 2009; 01:17pm ::
<http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-license-for-javax.jms...-and-javax.management....-classes--distributed-with-main-activemq-jar--p26596551.html>
those come from geronimo-j2ee-management_1.0_spec, the geronimo
distribution
of those j2ee apis that is Apache licensed. You may be able to find some
historical detail in the geronimo mail archives.
2009/12/1 Marshall Schor <msa@...
<http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26596551&i=0>>
>
> Hi -
>
> We're trying to figure out how to properly license a distribution
where we
> are including the apache-activemq-x.x.x.jar.
>
> This jar includes javax.jms... and javax.management... classes.
>
> Are these licensed under the Apache 2.0 license, or is a separate license
Marshall Schor wrote:
> Here's the response re: javax classes from legal-discuss
>
> -Marshall
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: mx4j jar including javax.management... classes; activemq
> jar containing javax.management and javax.jms... classes - license question
> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:03:13 +0000
> From: Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> References: <4B...@schor.com>
>
>
>
> Marshall Schor wrote:
>
>> The mx4j jar (used in many apache projects, including tomcat, geronimo,
>> ActiveMQ) claims to be licensed under an apache style license (see:
>> http://mx4j.sourceforge.net/docs/ch01s06.html ) .
>>
>> If you unzip the jar file, you find it has, in addition to mx4j classes,
>> javax.management... classes that appear to be from the j2ee java
>> distribution.
>>
>
> No, they are not from any other J2EE distribution.
>
> The nice thing about open source is that you can look at the source
> code. A quick peek shows that these classes have been implemented by the
> mx4j team. This is something they are required to do in order to provide
> a compliant JSR003 and JSR160 implementation.
>
> Tomcat does something similar for the JSP and Servlet APIs, Geronimo
> does it for all the J2EE APIs, etc
>
>
>> Is it OK to distribute these javax... classes with this license?
>>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> ActiveMQ's main jar,apache-activemq-4.1.1.jar, for instance, includes
>> javax.management... and javax.jms.... classes.
>>
>
> Again, as it is required to do in order to implement the spec. As long
> as the source for those classes was developed by the ActiveMQ team (or
> obtained under an appropriate license) - which I am sure it would have
> been - then there is no issue.
>
> What would not be OK, for example, would be copying the implementation
> of any classes from the JBoss source tree.
>
>
>> We are redistributing
>> this main jar, as well as mx4j, as part of our project (uima-as), and
>> are trying to get the proper license for this.
>>
>
> As long as you provide the proper entries in the LICENSE and NOTICE file
> then you will be fine. That is the only thing you need to worry about
> for those libraries.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>