You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com> on 2003/02/08 18:02:28 UTC
Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Folks,
Phoenix uses beanshell (optional). We do not have the jar in CVS, but
there are imports.
Should we move the classes to SourceForge
Regards,
- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>>>If the Beanshell is unmodified and the required notices are in place
>>>(as specified by section 3.5 of the license), then I see no obvious
>>>cause for concern with this license.
>
>>Pat does not actually distribute the license(s) itself, so this from the
>>netbeans site :
>
> See: http://www.sun.com/developers/spl.html
>
> If I read it correctly, since you distribute only a binary that you receive
> from Beanshell, it is his obligation to address 3.1 - 3.5, and your
> obligations are under 3.6, which state that "you include a notice stating
> that the Source Code version of [Beanshell] is available under the terms of
> this License."
>
> --- Noel
FYI: I found the license by thus:
http://www.beanshell.org/ =>
http://www.beanshell.org/license.html =>
http://www.sun.com/developers/spl.html
Anyway, I agree with Noel's conclusion.
- Sam Ruby
P.S. As copyright holder, Pat is not bound by this license. However,
it does appear that he has addressed sections 3.1 - 3.5, presuming that
no modifications were made to the binary received from the Beanshell site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> > If the Beanshell is unmodified and the required notices are in place
> > (as specified by section 3.5 of the license), then I see no obvious
> > cause for concern with this license.
> Pat does not actually distribute the license(s) itself, so this from the
> netbeans site :
See: http://www.sun.com/developers/spl.html
If I read it correctly, since you distribute only a binary that you receive
from Beanshell, it is his obligation to address 3.1 - 3.5, and your
obligations are under 3.6, which state that "you include a notice stating
that the Source Code version of [Beanshell] is available under the terms of
this License."
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Sam,
> If the Beanshell is unmodified and the required notices are in place
> (as specified by section 3.5 of the license), then I see no obvious
> cause for concern with this license.
Pat does not actually distribute the license(s) itself, so this from the
netbeans site :
| 3.5. Required Notices.
You must duplicate the notice in Exhibit A in each file of the Source
Code. If it is not possible to put such notice in a particular Source
Code file due to its structure, then You must include such notice in a
location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely
to look for such a notice. If You created one or more Modification(s)
You may add your name as a Contributor to the notice described in
Exhibit A. You must also duplicate this License in any documentation
for the Source Code where You describe recipients' rights or ownership
rights relating to Covered Code. You may choose to offer, and to
charge a fee for, warranty, support, indemnity or liability
obligations to one or more recipients of Covered Code. However, You
may do so only on Your own behalf, and not on behalf of the Initial
Developer or any Contributor. You must make it absolutely clear than
any such warranty, support, indemnity or liability obligation is
offered by You alone, and You hereby agree to indemnify the Initial
Developer and every Contributor for any liability incurred by the
Initial Developer or such Contributor as a result of warranty,
support, indemnity or liability terms You offer.|
The usage of beanshell is 'instantiation' not modify, extend etc.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/avalon-phoenix/src/java/org/apache/avalon/phoenix/components/kernel/beanshell/BeanShellGUI.java
Could you coach me a little please Sam?
- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
> Noel,
>
> I'm fine with it, if you're fine with it..
>
> - Paul
>
>> Paul,
>>
>> What is the problem? Beanshell is already dual licensed. Both ANT
>> and BSF
>> included Beanshell support, as does Forte. The license is the Sun Public
>> License, different from the Sun Binary License.
If the Beanshell is unmodified and the required notices are in place (as
specified by section 3.5 of the license), then I see no obvious cause
for concern with this license.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> I'm fine with it, if you're fine with it..
Not my call. The Board will have to speak to the issue. I was just
pointing out the new licensing arrangements.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
Re: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Noel,
I'm fine with it, if you're fine with it..
- Paul
>Paul,
>
>What is the problem? Beanshell is already dual licensed. Both ANT and BSF
>included Beanshell support, as does Forte. The license is the Sun Public
>License, different from the Sun Binary License.
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
RE: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Paul,
What is the problem? Beanshell is already dual licensed. Both ANT and BSF
included Beanshell support, as does Forte. The license is the Sun Public
License, different from the Sun Binary License.
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 12:02
To: Avalon Developers List
Subject: Phoenix using beanshell / license problem.
Folks,
Phoenix uses beanshell (optional). We do not have the jar in CVS, but
there are imports.
Should we move the classes to SourceForge
Regards,
- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org