You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Lance Bader <ld...@gmail.com> on 2007/04/02 17:23:15 UTC
Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
I am disturbed by the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
files included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar. The prolog in both files
says
<!--
Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
-->
I'm willing to believe that a Sun developer forgot to clean up the prologs
when these DTD files were released, but I don't want to lose my job because
I have distributed restricted SUN property.
I have done some homework. The subject files are available from the Sun
Developers Site at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ where Sun declares that "Unless
otherwise licensed, code in all technical manuals herein (including
articles, FAQs, samples) is provided under this License." and "this License"
links to the same Sun License included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar.
The problem is that this blanket statement does not apply to something
declared proprietary/confidential; something declared
proprietary/confidential is "otherwise licensed" and cannot be distributed.
Can someone show me evidence that Sun permits these files to be
distributed? Maybe there is a special agreement with the Apache Software
Foundation that can be referenced.
Are these files just included as a convenience? What would break if I just
removed them from the JAR?
It's not a perfect world,
Lance
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Maybe someone who is subscribed to legal-discuss (I'm not) can post
the issue over there and see if there's any consensus, then report the
results back here?
On 4/3/07, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > First - it's just a convenience, so you could remove it if you wanted,
> > with the possible disadvantages that Mike mentioned.
> >
> > Second - the files were originally included, I removed them after
> > licensing issues were mentioned - then there was a lengthy discussion
> > (which I don't remember anymore), after which I committed them again
> > as they seemed to be save.
> >
> > Typing them in by hand might be a save way to get around all eventual problems.
>
> The same issue came up with the Shale 1.0.4 release - Craig was
> looking at it, but I'm not sure he ever came back on it - relevant
> posts are here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vknhn
> http://tinyurl.com/2lq3gg
>
> Seems like it would be good to resolve once and for all since its
> affecting several areas of Apache.
>
> Niall
>
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have tools that will create a DTD for a specific xml file.
> > > Perhaps someone can provide a comprehensive faces-config file matching
> > > the DTD and I can just parse the DTD from that file?
> > >
> > > Seems like that'd be easier (or at least give a better starting point)
> > > than going from scratch.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/2/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:38 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Over in geronimo we noticed this text and have responded by:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. for the schemas that we generate code from (using xmlbeans or
> > > > > jaxb) we checked the schemas into a non-publically-accessible
> > > > > repository (with our tck stuff) and generate the code there, and
> > > > > publish source and binary jars, both without the schemas themselves.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. We also have an ongoing effort to produce unencumbered schemas.
> > > > > Apparently (IANAL) the actual schema/dtd is not copyrightable as it
> > > > > is an interface specification, the part that is copyrightable is
> > > > > the comments, annotations, etc. So, we have been typing up the
> > > > > schemas ourselves without any of the descriptive material.
> > > >
> > > > See this JIRA for more details on the effort in Geronimo that David
> > > > mentioned.
> > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2630
> > > >
> > > > Typing the schemas in by hand is tedious but maybe not so bad if we
> > > > divide and conquer. I'll volunteer to help if there's a consensus
> > > > around that approach. There is a utility attached to
> > > > the JIRA that can be used to compare schemas to make sure they are
> > > > equivalent.
> > > >
> > > > Best wishes,
> > > > Paul
>
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 4/2/07, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First - it's just a convenience, so you could remove it if you wanted,
> with the possible disadvantages that Mike mentioned.
>
> Second - the files were originally included, I removed them after
> licensing issues were mentioned - then there was a lengthy discussion
> (which I don't remember anymore), after which I committed them again
> as they seemed to be save.
>
> Typing them in by hand might be a save way to get around all eventual problems.
The same issue came up with the Shale 1.0.4 release - Craig was
looking at it, but I'm not sure he ever came back on it - relevant
posts are here:
http://tinyurl.com/2vknhn
http://tinyurl.com/2lq3gg
Seems like it would be good to resolve once and for all since its
affecting several areas of Apache.
Niall
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I have tools that will create a DTD for a specific xml file.
> > Perhaps someone can provide a comprehensive faces-config file matching
> > the DTD and I can just parse the DTD from that file?
> >
> > Seems like that'd be easier (or at least give a better starting point)
> > than going from scratch.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/2/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:38 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> > >
> > > > Over in geronimo we noticed this text and have responded by:
> > > >
> > > > 1. for the schemas that we generate code from (using xmlbeans or
> > > > jaxb) we checked the schemas into a non-publically-accessible
> > > > repository (with our tck stuff) and generate the code there, and
> > > > publish source and binary jars, both without the schemas themselves.
> > > >
> > > > 2. We also have an ongoing effort to produce unencumbered schemas.
> > > > Apparently (IANAL) the actual schema/dtd is not copyrightable as it
> > > > is an interface specification, the part that is copyrightable is
> > > > the comments, annotations, etc. So, we have been typing up the
> > > > schemas ourselves without any of the descriptive material.
> > >
> > > See this JIRA for more details on the effort in Geronimo that David
> > > mentioned.
> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2630
> > >
> > > Typing the schemas in by hand is tedious but maybe not so bad if we
> > > divide and conquer. I'll volunteer to help if there's a consensus
> > > around that approach. There is a utility attached to
> > > the JIRA that can be used to compare schemas to make sure they are
> > > equivalent.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Paul
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> First - it's just a convenience, so you could remove it if you wanted,
> with the possible disadvantages that Mike mentioned.
>
> Second - the files were originally included, I removed them after
> licensing issues were mentioned - then there was a lengthy discussion
> (which I don't remember anymore), after which I committed them again
> as they seemed to be save.
>
> Typing them in by hand might be a save way to get around all
> eventual problems.
I attached a hand typed version of web-facesconfig_1_2.xsd to
MYFACES-1582.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
First - it's just a convenience, so you could remove it if you wanted,
with the possible disadvantages that Mike mentioned.
Second - the files were originally included, I removed them after
licensing issues were mentioned - then there was a lengthy discussion
(which I don't remember anymore), after which I committed them again
as they seemed to be save.
Typing them in by hand might be a save way to get around all eventual problems.
regards,
Martin
On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have tools that will create a DTD for a specific xml file.
> Perhaps someone can provide a comprehensive faces-config file matching
> the DTD and I can just parse the DTD from that file?
>
> Seems like that'd be easier (or at least give a better starting point)
> than going from scratch.
>
>
>
> On 4/2/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:38 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> >
> > > Over in geronimo we noticed this text and have responded by:
> > >
> > > 1. for the schemas that we generate code from (using xmlbeans or
> > > jaxb) we checked the schemas into a non-publically-accessible
> > > repository (with our tck stuff) and generate the code there, and
> > > publish source and binary jars, both without the schemas themselves.
> > >
> > > 2. We also have an ongoing effort to produce unencumbered schemas.
> > > Apparently (IANAL) the actual schema/dtd is not copyrightable as it
> > > is an interface specification, the part that is copyrightable is
> > > the comments, annotations, etc. So, we have been typing up the
> > > schemas ourselves without any of the descriptive material.
> >
> > See this JIRA for more details on the effort in Geronimo that David
> > mentioned.
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2630
> >
> > Typing the schemas in by hand is tedious but maybe not so bad if we
> > divide and conquer. I'll volunteer to help if there's a consensus
> > around that approach. There is a utility attached to
> > the JIRA that can be used to compare schemas to make sure they are
> > equivalent.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Paul
> >
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
I have tools that will create a DTD for a specific xml file.
Perhaps someone can provide a comprehensive faces-config file matching
the DTD and I can just parse the DTD from that file?
Seems like that'd be easier (or at least give a better starting point)
than going from scratch.
On 4/2/07, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:38 AM, David Jencks wrote:
>
> > Over in geronimo we noticed this text and have responded by:
> >
> > 1. for the schemas that we generate code from (using xmlbeans or
> > jaxb) we checked the schemas into a non-publically-accessible
> > repository (with our tck stuff) and generate the code there, and
> > publish source and binary jars, both without the schemas themselves.
> >
> > 2. We also have an ongoing effort to produce unencumbered schemas.
> > Apparently (IANAL) the actual schema/dtd is not copyrightable as it
> > is an interface specification, the part that is copyrightable is
> > the comments, annotations, etc. So, we have been typing up the
> > schemas ourselves without any of the descriptive material.
>
> See this JIRA for more details on the effort in Geronimo that David
> mentioned.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2630
>
> Typing the schemas in by hand is tedious but maybe not so bad if we
> divide and conquer. I'll volunteer to help if there's a consensus
> around that approach. There is a utility attached to
> the JIRA that can be used to compare schemas to make sure they are
> equivalent.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>.
On Apr 2, 2007, at 11:38 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> Over in geronimo we noticed this text and have responded by:
>
> 1. for the schemas that we generate code from (using xmlbeans or
> jaxb) we checked the schemas into a non-publically-accessible
> repository (with our tck stuff) and generate the code there, and
> publish source and binary jars, both without the schemas themselves.
>
> 2. We also have an ongoing effort to produce unencumbered schemas.
> Apparently (IANAL) the actual schema/dtd is not copyrightable as it
> is an interface specification, the part that is copyrightable is
> the comments, annotations, etc. So, we have been typing up the
> schemas ourselves without any of the descriptive material.
See this JIRA for more details on the effort in Geronimo that David
mentioned.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GERONIMO-2630
Typing the schemas in by hand is tedious but maybe not so bad if we
divide and conquer. I'll volunteer to help if there's a consensus
around that approach. There is a utility attached to
the JIRA that can be used to compare schemas to make sure they are
equivalent.
Best wishes,
Paul
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>.
Over in geronimo we noticed this text and have responded by:
1. for the schemas that we generate code from (using xmlbeans or
jaxb) we checked the schemas into a non-publically-accessible
repository (with our tck stuff) and generate the code there, and
publish source and binary jars, both without the schemas themselves.
2. We also have an ongoing effort to produce unencumbered schemas.
Apparently (IANAL) the actual schema/dtd is not copyrightable as it
is an interface specification, the part that is copyrightable is the
comments, annotations, etc. So, we have been typing up the schemas
ourselves without any of the descriptive material.
I don't remember the exact history but I think that Sun declined to
change or clarify the licensing terms so we could redistribute the
sun schemas themselves. It's also possible that we just couldn't get
an answer.
My understanding is that tomcat svn includes quite a number of
schemas/dtds with these license conditions, and that this is ok
because they were checked into svn (or more likely cvs) by sun
employees who presumably had the proper authorization to do so.
How something that is freely available on the web without going
through even a clickthrough license can be maintained to be
confidential is a question I can only assume lawyers would love to
answer.
thanks
david jencks
On Apr 2, 2007, at 8:23 AM, Lance Bader wrote:
> I am disturbed by the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-
> facesconfig_1_1.dtd files included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-
> SNAPSHOT.jar. The prolog in both files says
>
> <!--
> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
> -->
>
> I'm willing to believe that a Sun developer forgot to clean up the
> prologs when these DTD files were released, but I don't want to
> lose my job because I have distributed restricted SUN property.
>
> I have done some homework. The subject files are available from
> the Sun Developers Site at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ where Sun
> declares that "Unless otherwise licensed, code in all technical
> manuals herein (including articles, FAQs, samples) is provided
> under this License." and "this License" links to the same Sun
> License included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar. The problem
> is that this blanket statement does not apply to something declared
> proprietary/confidential; something declared proprietary/
> confidential is "otherwise licensed" and cannot be distributed.
>
> Can someone show me evidence that Sun permits these files to be
> distributed? Maybe there is a special agreement with the Apache
> Software Foundation that can be referenced.
>
> Are these files just included as a convenience? What would break
> if I just removed them from the JAR?
>
> It's not a perfect world,
>
> Lance
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
One other thing to note is that the sun 1.1 dtd file is included
verbatim as part of the JSF spec.
See 10.3.3 Application Configuration Resource Format
On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For this particular file set, the person to answer would be Martin
> Marinschek as he committed the license and the files.
>
> On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Lance,
> >
> > I think you can safely delete these files without impacting your
> > application (although your app may go out to the internet and attempt
> > to resolve the dtd reference if the files are not available locally).
> >
> > I do see a license file located in the following location which does
> > appear to grant redistribution. This should cover the proprietary
> > issue since it's being used according to the license terms.
> >
> > META-INF/licenses/sundtd-LICENSE.txt
> >
> > These files cannot be considered "confidential" as they are
> > deliberately published for public use at the following URLs:
> >
> > http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
> > http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/2/07, Lance Bader <ld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am disturbed by the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
> > > files included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar. The prolog in both files
> > > says
> > >
> > > <!--
> > > Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> > > SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
> > > -->
> > >
> > > I'm willing to believe that a Sun developer forgot to clean up the prologs
> > > when these DTD files were released, but I don't want to lose my job because
> > > I have distributed restricted SUN property.
> > >
> > > I have done some homework. The subject files are available from the Sun
> > > Developers Site at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ where Sun declares that "Unless
> > > otherwise licensed, code in all technical manuals herein (including
> > > articles, FAQs, samples) is provided under this License." and "this License"
> > > links to the same Sun License included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar.
> > > The problem is that this blanket statement does not apply to something
> > > declared proprietary/confidential; something declared
> > > proprietary/confidential is "otherwise licensed" and cannot be distributed.
> > >
> > > Can someone show me evidence that Sun permits these files to be distributed?
> > > Maybe there is a special agreement with the Apache Software Foundation that
> > > can be referenced.
> > >
> > > Are these files just included as a convenience? What would break if I just
> > > removed them from the JAR?
> > >
> > > It's not a perfect world,
> > >
> > > Lance
> > >
> >
>
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
For this particular file set, the person to answer would be Martin
Marinschek as he committed the license and the files.
On 4/2/07, Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lance,
>
> I think you can safely delete these files without impacting your
> application (although your app may go out to the internet and attempt
> to resolve the dtd reference if the files are not available locally).
>
> I do see a license file located in the following location which does
> appear to grant redistribution. This should cover the proprietary
> issue since it's being used according to the license terms.
>
> META-INF/licenses/sundtd-LICENSE.txt
>
> These files cannot be considered "confidential" as they are
> deliberately published for public use at the following URLs:
>
> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
> http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
>
>
>
> On 4/2/07, Lance Bader <ld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am disturbed by the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
> > files included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar. The prolog in both files
> > says
> >
> > <!--
> > Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> > SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
> > -->
> >
> > I'm willing to believe that a Sun developer forgot to clean up the prologs
> > when these DTD files were released, but I don't want to lose my job because
> > I have distributed restricted SUN property.
> >
> > I have done some homework. The subject files are available from the Sun
> > Developers Site at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ where Sun declares that "Unless
> > otherwise licensed, code in all technical manuals herein (including
> > articles, FAQs, samples) is provided under this License." and "this License"
> > links to the same Sun License included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar.
> > The problem is that this blanket statement does not apply to something
> > declared proprietary/confidential; something declared
> > proprietary/confidential is "otherwise licensed" and cannot be distributed.
> >
> > Can someone show me evidence that Sun permits these files to be distributed?
> > Maybe there is a special agreement with the Apache Software Foundation that
> > can be referenced.
> >
> > Are these files just included as a convenience? What would break if I just
> > removed them from the JAR?
> >
> > It's not a perfect world,
> >
> > Lance
> >
>
Re: Are the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd files really SUN confidential/proprietary property?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
Lance,
I think you can safely delete these files without impacting your
application (although your app may go out to the internet and attempt
to resolve the dtd reference if the files are not available locally).
I do see a license file located in the following location which does
appear to grant redistribution. This should cover the proprietary
issue since it's being used according to the license terms.
META-INF/licenses/sundtd-LICENSE.txt
These files cannot be considered "confidential" as they are
deliberately published for public use at the following URLs:
http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
http://java.sun.com/dtd/web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd
On 4/2/07, Lance Bader <ld...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am disturbed by the web-facesconfig_1_0.dtd and web-facesconfig_1_1.dtd
> files included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar. The prolog in both files
> says
>
> <!--
> Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
> SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms.
> -->
>
> I'm willing to believe that a Sun developer forgot to clean up the prologs
> when these DTD files were released, but I don't want to lose my job because
> I have distributed restricted SUN property.
>
> I have done some homework. The subject files are available from the Sun
> Developers Site at http://java.sun.com/dtd/ where Sun declares that "Unless
> otherwise licensed, code in all technical manuals herein (including
> articles, FAQs, samples) is provided under this License." and "this License"
> links to the same Sun License included in myfaces-impl-1.2.0-SNAPSHOT.jar.
> The problem is that this blanket statement does not apply to something
> declared proprietary/confidential; something declared
> proprietary/confidential is "otherwise licensed" and cannot be distributed.
>
> Can someone show me evidence that Sun permits these files to be distributed?
> Maybe there is a special agreement with the Apache Software Foundation that
> can be referenced.
>
> Are these files just included as a convenience? What would break if I just
> removed them from the JAR?
>
> It's not a perfect world,
>
> Lance
>