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 2007/06/21 04:39:10 UTC
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
No doubt I''m just stupid...
The new improved xsd still says:
No part of this document
may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
prior written authorization?
As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4, j2ee
1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license headers.
Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at Sun) the
geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing all these
schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able to put them
back.
Geronimo would like at least:
application-client_5.xsd
application_5.xsd
ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
handler-chain.xsd
javaee_5.xsd
javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
jsp_2_1.xsd
persistence_1_0.xsd
web-app_2_5.xsd
web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
application-client_1_4.xsd
application_1_4.xsd
connector_1_5.xsd
ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
j2ee_1_4.xsd
j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
jsp_2_0.xsd
web-app_2_4.xsd
web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/portlet/
portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language, it also
doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the xsd
itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
many thanks,
david jencks
On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>
> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>
> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>
> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files in
> the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest versions
> from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should be updated
> to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL license option
> do we).
>
> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
> to get them updated as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig
>
> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>
>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>>
>> <!--
>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>> -->
>>
>> appearing in these two files?
>>
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>> view=markup
>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>> revision=374886&view=markup
>>
>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not be
>> Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are proprietary/
>> confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that someone with
>> commit privs project would check files into an ASF repo with this
>> copyright statement, regardless of the technical justification?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>> educational
>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>> official ASF policies and documents.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by David Blevins <da...@visi.com>.
Craig,
The Geronimo list pretty much covers our needs too. It would be nice
to have the ejb-jar 2.0 DTD as well, but not critical.
-David
On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:40 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Hi Dain,
>
> This is a list of dtd/xsd that we're working on now.
>
> Craig
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> Date: June 20, 2007 7:39:10 PM PDT
>> To: Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>
>> Cc: Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>, MyFaces Development
>> <de...@myfaces.apache.org>, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>,
>> "Geronimo Dev List (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>> Subject: Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
>>
>> No doubt I''m just stupid...
>> The new improved xsd still says:
>>
>> No part of this document
>> may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
>> written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>>
>> Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
>> prior written authorization?
>>
>> As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
>> from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
>> top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
>> language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
>> assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public
>> svn, it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee
>> 1.4, j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
>> headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
>> Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort
>> removing all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to
>> be able to put them back.
>>
>> Geronimo would like at least:
>>
>> application-client_5.xsd
>> application_5.xsd
>> ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
>> handler-chain.xsd
>> javaee_5.xsd
>> javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
>> javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
>> jsp_2_1.xsd
>> persistence_1_0.xsd
>> web-app_2_5.xsd
>> web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
>> web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
>>
>> application-client_1_4.xsd
>> application_1_4.xsd
>> connector_1_5.xsd
>> ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
>> j2ee_1_4.xsd
>> j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
>> j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
>> j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
>> jsp_2_0.xsd
>> web-app_2_4.xsd
>> web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
>>
>> Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
>> portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive
>> language, it also doesn't have any indication at all of its
>> license in the xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome
>> improvement IMO.
>>
>> many thanks,
>> david jencks
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>>
>>> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
>>> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
>>> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>>>
>>> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
>>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>>>
>>> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
>>> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
>>> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
>>> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
>>> license option do we).
>>>
>>> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
>>> to get them updated as well.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>>>>
>>>> <!--
>>>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>>>> -->
>>>>
>>>> appearing in these two files?
>>>>
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>>>> view=markup
>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>>>> revision=374886&view=markup
>>>>
>>>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
>>>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
>>>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
>>>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
>>>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
>>>> justification?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>>>> educational
>>>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>>>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the
>>>> opinions
>>>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>>>> official ASF policies and documents.
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> Craig Russell
>>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>>> products/jdo
>>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>> educational
>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>> official ASF policies and documents.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>.
On 7/4/07, Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally, I was hoping in future if it could be a possibility to
> have the ability to plugin a JDO implementation like JPOX for the CMP
> piece. If this is something which could be considered, then inclusion
> of the JDO DTDs and schemas in the list would be nice to have. I
> thought I would just ask it upfront in order to avoid asking for it
> later.
I remember someone reported some success with EasyBeans and JPOX as a
JPA provider (they use openjpa by default I guess). I have never
worked with JPOX, but it struck me when I saw it again in the context
of jpa support. It'd be great to be able to plug different jpa
providers (toplink, hibernate, jpox, cayenne) in to openejb/geronimo.
I hope you'll take an active role and I'll certainly follow ;-)
Dain, how easy is it to switch between jpa providers? Where are the
tough points that make the process harder?
Jacek
--
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.JacekLaskowski.pl
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
Karan,
Craig is the JDO spec lead so I'm sure the JDO DTDs and schemas are
in line.
Also, plugging in JDO should be pretty easy except for EJB-QL
support, which will require either a cross compiler or JPox could
support EJB-QL directly. Alternatively, a user could just use the
JDO query language instead of EJB-QL.
-dain
On Jul 4, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Karan Malhi wrote:
> Personally, I was hoping in future if it could be a possibility to
> have the ability to plugin a JDO implementation like JPOX for the CMP
> piece. If this is something which could be considered, then inclusion
> of the JDO DTDs and schemas in the list would be nice to have. I
> thought I would just ask it upfront in order to avoid asking for it
> later.
>
> Also, what about http://java.sun.com/dtd/logger.dtd . I think it might
> be a non-issue, no harm in bringing it up though :)
>
> On 7/3/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dain,
>>
>> This is a list of dtd/xsd that we're working on now.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> > From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
>> > Date: June 20, 2007 7:39:10 PM PDT
>> > To: Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>
>> > Cc: Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>, MyFaces Development
>> > <de...@myfaces.apache.org>, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>,
>> > "Geronimo Dev List (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
>> > Subject: Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
>> >
>> > No doubt I''m just stupid...
>> > The new improved xsd still says:
>> >
>> > No part of this document
>> > may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
>> > written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>> >
>> > Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
>> > prior written authorization?
>> >
>> > As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
>> > from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
>> > top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
>> > language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
>> > assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
>> > it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4,
>> > j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
>> > headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
>> > Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing
>> > all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able
>> > to put them back.
>> >
>> > Geronimo would like at least:
>> >
>> > application-client_5.xsd
>> > application_5.xsd
>> > ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
>> > handler-chain.xsd
>> > javaee_5.xsd
>> > javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
>> > javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
>> > jsp_2_1.xsd
>> > persistence_1_0.xsd
>> > web-app_2_5.xsd
>> > web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
>> > web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
>> >
>> > application-client_1_4.xsd
>> > application_1_4.xsd
>> > connector_1_5.xsd
>> > ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
>> > j2ee_1_4.xsd
>> > j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
>> > j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
>> > j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
>> > jsp_2_0.xsd
>> > web-app_2_4.xsd
>> > web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
>> >
>> > Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
>> > portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language,
>> > it also doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the
>> > xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
>> >
>> > many thanks,
>> > david jencks
>> >
>> > On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
>> >> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
>> >> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>> >>
>> >> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>> >>
>> >> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
>> >> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>> >> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>> >>
>> >> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
>> >> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
>> >> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
>> >> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
>> >> license option do we).
>> >>
>> >> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
>> >> to get them updated as well.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Craig
>> >>
>> >> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>> >>>
>> >>> <!--
>> >>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>> >>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>> >>> -->
>> >>>
>> >>> appearing in these two files?
>> >>>
>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>> >>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>> >>> view=markup
>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>> >>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>> >>> revision=374886&view=markup
>> >>>
>> >>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
>> >>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
>> >>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
>> >>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
>> >>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
>> >>> justification?
>> >>>
>> >>> Bill
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> -
>> >>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>> >>> educational
>> >>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> >>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the
>> opinions
>> >>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/
>> > for
>> >>> official ASF policies and documents.
>> >>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> -
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Craig Russell
>> >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/
>> products/
>> >> jdo
>> >> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>> educational
>> > only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>> > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the
>> opinions
>> > and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>> > official ASF policies and documents.
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>> >
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karan Singh Malhi
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by Karan Malhi <ka...@gmail.com>.
Personally, I was hoping in future if it could be a possibility to
have the ability to plugin a JDO implementation like JPOX for the CMP
piece. If this is something which could be considered, then inclusion
of the JDO DTDs and schemas in the list would be nice to have. I
thought I would just ask it upfront in order to avoid asking for it
later.
Also, what about http://java.sun.com/dtd/logger.dtd . I think it might
be a non-issue, no harm in bringing it up though :)
On 7/3/07, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi Dain,
>
> This is a list of dtd/xsd that we're working on now.
>
> Craig
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> > Date: June 20, 2007 7:39:10 PM PDT
> > To: Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>
> > Cc: Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>, MyFaces Development
> > <de...@myfaces.apache.org>, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>,
> > "Geronimo Dev List (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
> >
> > No doubt I''m just stupid...
> > The new improved xsd still says:
> >
> > No part of this document
> > may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
> > written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
> >
> > Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
> > prior written authorization?
> >
> > As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
> > from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
> > top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
> > language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
> > assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
> > it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4,
> > j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
> > headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
> > Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing
> > all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able
> > to put them back.
> >
> > Geronimo would like at least:
> >
> > application-client_5.xsd
> > application_5.xsd
> > ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
> > handler-chain.xsd
> > javaee_5.xsd
> > javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
> > javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
> > jsp_2_1.xsd
> > persistence_1_0.xsd
> > web-app_2_5.xsd
> > web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
> > web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
> >
> > application-client_1_4.xsd
> > application_1_4.xsd
> > connector_1_5.xsd
> > ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
> > j2ee_1_4.xsd
> > j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
> > j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
> > j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
> > jsp_2_0.xsd
> > web-app_2_4.xsd
> > web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
> >
> > Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
> > portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language,
> > it also doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the
> > xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
> >
> > many thanks,
> > david jencks
> >
> > On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> >> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
> >> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
> >> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
> >>
> >> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
> >>
> >> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
> >> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
> >> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
> >>
> >> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
> >> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
> >> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
> >> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
> >> license option do we).
> >>
> >> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
> >> to get them updated as well.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> >>
> >>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
> >>>
> >>> <!--
> >>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> >>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
> >>> -->
> >>>
> >>> appearing in these two files?
> >>>
> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
> >>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
> >>> view=markup
> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
> >>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
> >>> revision=374886&view=markup
> >>>
> >>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
> >>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
> >>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
> >>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
> >>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
> >>> justification?
> >>>
> >>> Bill
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -
> >>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
> >>> educational
> >>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> >>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> >>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> >>> official ASF policies and documents.
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> Craig Russell
> >> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
> >> jdo
> >> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> >> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> > only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> > constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> > and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> > official ASF policies and documents.
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
--
Karan Singh Malhi
Fwd: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Dain,
This is a list of dtd/xsd that we're working on now.
Craig
Begin forwarded message:
> From: David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>
> Date: June 20, 2007 7:39:10 PM PDT
> To: Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>
> Cc: Legal Discuss <le...@apache.org>, MyFaces Development
> <de...@myfaces.apache.org>, Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>,
> "Geronimo Dev List (JIRA)" <de...@geronimo.apache.org>
> Subject: Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
>
> No doubt I''m just stupid...
> The new improved xsd still says:
>
> No part of this document
> may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
> written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>
> Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
> prior written authorization?
>
> As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
> from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
> top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
> language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
> assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
> it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4,
> j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
> headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
> Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing
> all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able
> to put them back.
>
> Geronimo would like at least:
>
> application-client_5.xsd
> application_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
> handler-chain.xsd
> javaee_5.xsd
> javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
> javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
> jsp_2_1.xsd
> persistence_1_0.xsd
> web-app_2_5.xsd
> web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
>
> application-client_1_4.xsd
> application_1_4.xsd
> connector_1_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
> j2ee_1_4.xsd
> j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
> jsp_2_0.xsd
> web-app_2_4.xsd
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
>
> Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
> portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language,
> it also doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the
> xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
>
> many thanks,
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
>> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
>> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>>
>> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>>
>> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>>
>> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
>> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
>> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
>> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
>> license option do we).
>>
>> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
>> to get them updated as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>>>
>>> <!--
>>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>>> -->
>>>
>>> appearing in these two files?
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>>> view=markup
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>>> revision=374886&view=markup
>>>
>>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
>>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
>>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
>>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
>>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
>>> justification?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>>> educational
>>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>>> official ASF policies and documents.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Here's the relevant part of the file, that is "prior written
authorization" from Sun:
The contents of this file are subject to the terms of either the GNU
General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the Common Development
and Distribution License("CDDL") (collectively, the "License"). You
may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You can
obtain
a copy of the License at https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL
+GPL.html
or glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. See the License for the
specific
language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
I'll ask about the xsds that you list below...
Craig
On Jun 20, 2007, at 7:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> No doubt I''m just stupid...
> The new improved xsd still says:
>
> No part of this document
> may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
> written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>
> Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
> prior written authorization?
>
> As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
> from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
> top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
> language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
> assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
> it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4,
> j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
> headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
> Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing
> all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able
> to put them back.
>
> Geronimo would like at least:
>
> application-client_5.xsd
> application_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
> handler-chain.xsd
> javaee_5.xsd
> javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
> javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
> jsp_2_1.xsd
> persistence_1_0.xsd
> web-app_2_5.xsd
> web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
>
> application-client_1_4.xsd
> application_1_4.xsd
> connector_1_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
> j2ee_1_4.xsd
> j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
> jsp_2_0.xsd
> web-app_2_4.xsd
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
>
> Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
> portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language,
> it also doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the
> xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
>
> many thanks,
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
>> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
>> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>>
>> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>>
>> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>>
>> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
>> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
>> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
>> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
>> license option do we).
>>
>> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
>> to get them updated as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>>>
>>> <!--
>>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>>> -->
>>>
>>> appearing in these two files?
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>>> view=markup
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>>> revision=374886&view=markup
>>>
>>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
>>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
>>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
>>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
>>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
>>> justification?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>>> educational
>>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>>> official ASF policies and documents.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Here's the relevant part of the file, that is "prior written
authorization" from Sun:
The contents of this file are subject to the terms of either the GNU
General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the Common Development
and Distribution License("CDDL") (collectively, the "License"). You
may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You can
obtain
a copy of the License at https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL
+GPL.html
or glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. See the License for the
specific
language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
I'll ask about the xsds that you list below...
Craig
On Jun 20, 2007, at 7:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> No doubt I''m just stupid...
> The new improved xsd still says:
>
> No part of this document
> may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
> written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>
> Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
> prior written authorization?
>
> As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
> from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
> top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
> language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
> assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
> it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4,
> j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
> headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
> Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing
> all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able
> to put them back.
>
> Geronimo would like at least:
>
> application-client_5.xsd
> application_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
> handler-chain.xsd
> javaee_5.xsd
> javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
> javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
> jsp_2_1.xsd
> persistence_1_0.xsd
> web-app_2_5.xsd
> web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
>
> application-client_1_4.xsd
> application_1_4.xsd
> connector_1_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
> j2ee_1_4.xsd
> j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
> jsp_2_0.xsd
> web-app_2_4.xsd
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
>
> Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
> portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language,
> it also doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the
> xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
>
> many thanks,
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
>> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
>> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>>
>> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>>
>> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>>
>> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
>> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
>> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
>> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
>> license option do we).
>>
>> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
>> to get them updated as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>>>
>>> <!--
>>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>>> -->
>>>
>>> appearing in these two files?
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>>> view=markup
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>>> revision=374886&view=markup
>>>
>>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
>>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
>>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
>>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
>>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
>>> justification?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>>> educational
>>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>>> official ASF policies and documents.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL code in myfaces
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Here's the relevant part of the file, that is "prior written
authorization" from Sun:
The contents of this file are subject to the terms of either the GNU
General Public License Version 2 only ("GPL") or the Common Development
and Distribution License("CDDL") (collectively, the "License"). You
may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You can
obtain
a copy of the License at https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL
+GPL.html
or glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. See the License for the
specific
language governing permissions and limitations under the License.
I'll ask about the xsds that you list below...
Craig
On Jun 20, 2007, at 7:39 PM, David Jencks wrote:
> No doubt I''m just stupid...
> The new improved xsd still says:
>
> No part of this document
> may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior
> written authorization of Sun and its licensors, if any.
>
> Am I supposed to be able to figure out that the license _is_ such
> prior written authorization?
>
> As for other similar cases, I'm not aware of other schemas or dtds
> from sun that have the explicit "PROPRIETARY CONFIDENTIAL" at the
> top, but all (or almost all) the other ones I've seen have the
> language I just quoted and (definitely) no license header. So,
> assuming the current versions are actually OK to put in public svn,
> it would be great to get copies of all the java ee 5, j2ee 1.4,
> j2ee 1.3, and j2ee 1.2 schemas and dtds with similar license
> headers. Previously (IIUC due to some complaints from others at
> Sun) the geronimo project has spent quite a bit of effort removing
> all these schemas and dtds from public svn. We'd love to be able
> to put them back.
>
> Geronimo would like at least:
>
> application-client_5.xsd
> application_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_3_0.xsd
> handler-chain.xsd
> javaee_5.xsd
> javaee_web_services_1_2.xsd
> javaee_web_services_client_1_2.xsd
> jsp_2_1.xsd
> persistence_1_0.xsd
> web-app_2_5.xsd
> web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd (already done)
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_1.xsd
>
> application-client_1_4.xsd
> application_1_4.xsd
> connector_1_5.xsd
> ejb-jar_2_1.xsd
> j2ee_1_4.xsd
> j2ee_jaxrpc_mapping_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_1_1.xsd
> j2ee_web_services_client_1_1.xsd
> jsp_2_0.xsd
> web-app_2_4.xsd
> web-jsptaglibrary_2_0.xsd
>
> Although the portlet-app_1_0.xsd (http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/
> portlet/portlet-app_1_0.xsd) doesn't have any restrictive language,
> it also doesn't have any indication at all of its license in the
> xsd itself. A license header would be a welcome improvement IMO.
>
> many thanks,
> david jencks
>
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 9:31 PM, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> I've been working with Sun to get the appropriate legal notices
>> changed in the relevant files: the xsd for faces 1.2 and the dtd
>> for faces 1.0 and 1.1.
>>
>> Please take a look at the newly updated files at:
>>
>> http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
>>
>> The notices in these files should be self-explanatory. The files
>> in the faces repository should be refreshed with the latest
>> versions from the web. The NOTICE file in the distribution should
>> be updated to reflect the CDDL license (we don't want the GPL
>> license option do we).
>>
>> If there are other similar cases, please let me know and I'll try
>> to get them updated as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On May 21, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone here besides me see a problem with this copyright:
>>>
>>> <!--
>>> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
>>> -->
>>>
>>> appearing in these two files?
>>>
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd?
>>> view=markup
>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/myfaces/core/trunk/impl/src/main/
>>> resources/org/apache/myfaces/resource/web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd?
>>> revision=374886&view=markup
>>>
>>> These two DTDs are part of the JSR 127 spec, so they should not
>>> be Sun proprietary/confidential. Maybe the comments are
>>> proprietary/confidential? Am I wrong for being annoyed that
>>> someone with commit privs project would check files into an ASF
>>> repo with this copyright statement, regardless of the technical
>>> justification?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>>> educational
>>> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
>>> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
>>> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
>>> official ASF policies and documents.
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/
>> jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!