Re: Why are we still using JAXP and ProjectX???(proprietary==evil)

["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)

[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()