You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com> on 2007/08/01 22:23:12 UTC
Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Much thanks to Craig Russell for going a long way towards clearing up
proprietary/licensing issues with J2EE and Java EE dtd and xsd files.
There's one question remaining, in my mind. Can CDDL licensed xsd's
and dtd's be distributed by an Apache product?
The current draft of the 3rd party licensing policy -- http://
people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html -- lists CDDL as a category B
(binary license file). Assuming this is accurate, the question then
becomes are dtd/xsd files source or binary?
I seem to recall some discussion that touched on this topic, but I'm
not finding it in legal-discuss. Do we have a policy in this regard?
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
According to the ASF board minutes, Sam Ruby has an action item ([1]
8 A Copyright of .dtd/.xsd files and other Reference Material and [1]
9. AI Sam) to clarify this DRAFT policy with regard to redistribution
of xsd and dtd licensed under CDDL.
Craig
[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2007/
board_minutes_2007_07_09.txt
On Aug 1, 2007, at 1:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> The current draft of the 3rd party licensing policy --
>> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html -- lists CDDL as a
>> category
>> B (binary license file). Assuming this is accurate, the question then
>> becomes are dtd/xsd files source or binary?
>
> This was asked and answered; they are neither our conventional
> definition
> of source, nor an illegible binary format. They are sources are
> not used
> in any compiled form, and therefore any reciprocal or copyleft
> requirement
> is not a problem. They are always used in source form under any
> application
> and therefore meet the reciprocal or copyleft requirement in any
> case without
> additional license burdens for 'binary builds'.
>
> Does that make more sense?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <he...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 18:29 -0700, Craig L Russell wrote:
> These files are source because humans can read them. They are binary
> because they are not compiled; they are used "as is" in deployed
> applications. They are neither source nor binary because they are not
> compiled but they are human-readable. The envelope please...
FWIW, I would treat these files as I would treat e.g. a perl program or
a shell script. These are also "source only" and never converted into a
binary form but still they are the whole program. As we hand these files
out "as is", they are IMHO binaries. The fact that one can read and
understand these binaries is irrelevant. If you hand me a good old CP/M
program, I could read it too. :-) (ah, the days of the Z80...)
Best regards
Henning
>
> Craig
>
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> > As long as it is copyrighted, then why the concern about whether it is
> > source or binary? Whatever form it is in is the form you got. Call
> > that
> > "source". Did you get enough source to satisfy ASF policies and needs,
> > including to pass on enough information to enable Apache licenses
> > to do what
> > they need with the software downstream?
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:59 PM
> >> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> >> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; 'William A. Rowe, Jr.'
> >> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >>>> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
> >>>> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
> >>>> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
> >>>
> >>> Are they copyrighted works?
> >>
> >> Yes. Here is an example -- http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-
> >> jar_3_0.xsd
> >>
> >> Excerpted from this file:
> >>
> >> <xsd:documentation>
> >>
> >>
> >> DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
> >>
> >> Copyright 2003-2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights
> >> reserved.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> When distributing the software, include this License Header
> >> Notice in each file and include the License file at
> >> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. Sun designates this
> >> particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as
> >> provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License
> >> file
> >> that accompanied this code. If applicable, add the following
> >> below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by
> >> brackets []
> >> replaced by your own identifying information:
> >> "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
> >>
> >> Contributor(s):
> >>
> >> If you wish your version of this file to be governed by
> >> only the
> >> CDDL or only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by
> >> adding
> >> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this
> >> distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
> >> If you
> >> don't indicate a single choice of license, a recipient has the
> >> option to distribute your version of this file under either
> >> the
> >> CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license
> >> to its
> >> licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL
> >> Version 2
> >> code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then
> >> the
> >> option applies only if the new code is made subject to such
> >> option by the copyright holder.
> >>
> >>
> >> </xsd:documentation>
> >>
> >> --kevan
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Exactly. Since AL2 isn't copyleft, and CDDL has some copy-leftish provisions,
>> but these files are distributed under AL2 -always in source form- there is
>> no issue that the downstream users would violate the copy-leftish provision
>> of the CDDL (and, the CDDL is not viral).
>
> Excuse me, but we are *not* changing the license on these files. They
> will continue to be shipped in Apache bundles under their original
> GPL/CDDL license, and not the Apache Version 2 license. As such, the
> licenses need to be called out in the LICENSE file of the distribution
> and the source/binary/whatever files will still contain their own
> unmodified license and copyright notices just as we found them.
>
> Or am I completely missing your point?
You did. My point is that the license is not incompatible with the use
of the finished work under the Apache License. If someone then passes on
this very same work, or a modified copy of this work, there is no way to
unintentionally violate the nested CDDL license if those components of the
finished work are always in source-code form.
If CDDL or LGPL nested (compiled) source files were present, it would be
fairly easy for a user to fall out of conformance with the license by
distributing a binary without the source files.
You see the concern/distinction and why it doesn't apply to source-only
artifacts?
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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
On Aug 1, 2007, at 9:13 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>> So a definition that reads "preferred form ... for making
>> modifications"
>> doesn't at all imply that anyone wants to actually make and
>> distribute
>> modifications, as long as ASF is not prohibited by the copyright
>> owner from
>> doing so under the Apache License 2.0.
>
> Exactly. Since AL2 isn't copyleft, and CDDL has some copy-leftish
> provisions,
> but these files are distributed under AL2 -always in source form-,
> there is
> no issue that the downstream users would violate the copy-leftish
> provision
> of the CDDL (and, the CDDL is not viral).
Excuse me, but we are *not* changing the license on these files. They
will continue to be shipped in Apache bundles under their original
GPL/CDDL license, and not the Apache Version 2 license. As such, the
licenses need to be called out in the LICENSE file of the
distribution and the source/binary/whatever files will still contain
their own unmodified license and copyright notices just as we found
them.
Or am I completely missing your point?
Craig
>
> So if we change the phrase "binary" to "binary, or those files
> always shipped
> and consumed in source form" we would have no compatibility issues
> even under
> our current FAQ, which I think is the right solution, instead of
> developing
> yet-a-third category for consideration.
>
> 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: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> So a definition that reads "preferred form ... for making modifications"
> doesn't at all imply that anyone wants to actually make and distribute
> modifications, as long as ASF is not prohibited by the copyright owner from
> doing so under the Apache License 2.0.
Exactly. Since AL2 isn't copyleft, and CDDL has some copy-leftish provisions,
but these files are distributed under AL2 -always in source form-, there is
no issue that the downstream users would violate the copy-leftish provision
of the CDDL (and, the CDDL is not viral).
So if we change the phrase "binary" to "binary, or those files always shipped
and consumed in source form" we would have no compatibility issues even under
our current FAQ, which I think is the right solution, instead of developing
yet-a-third category for consideration.
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
RE: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Craig Russell wrote:
> The issue for specification dtd and xsd files is that they lose their
> value when modified, in that they no longer reflect the specification
> for which they are issued. So it's not clear how your definition
> "preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications" would
> apply.
The issue for "source code" isn't value. It isn't whether changes continue
to reflect someone's specification. Those are separate issues, long since
settled by the open source rules that allow ASF to do whatever it wants with
software it includes in its products, including things that specification
authors may not consider valuable.
So a definition that reads "preferred form ... for making modifications"
doesn't at all imply that anyone wants to actually make and distribute
modifications, as long as ASF is not prohibited by the copyright owner from
doing so under the Apache License 2.0.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig.Russell@Sun.COM [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 8:17 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> In Cliff's draft, there is an assumption that source code is intended
> to be modified, and therefore source code licensed under the CDDL is
> suspect.
>
> The issue for specification dtd and xsd files is that they lose their
> value when modified, in that they no longer reflect the specification
> for which they are issued. So it's not clear how your definition
> "preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications" would
> apply.
>
> Therefore, I have suggested that it is useful to treat specification
> xsd and dtd files licensed under CDDL as if they were binary, using
> the definition of binary as "not intended to be modified".
>
> I'm hoping that at some point here, we can all agree that
> specification CDDL-licensed xsd and dtd files are redistributable in
> Apache bundles. And that Sam and Cliff can agree on the rationale for
> doing so and incorporate the reasoning into the official 3party
> policy. So we don't have to have this discussion every few months.
>
> Craig
>
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> > I read and reviewed Cliff's draft many months ago and thought it
> > was very
> > nice. I hope I don't have to read it again soon. :-)
> >
> > My point was only this: The definition of source code is sometimes
> > confusing
> > in our industry. Here's how I define it in OSL/AFL 3.0, and there are
> > similar definitions in other licenses: "The term 'Source Code'
> > means the
> > preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it
> > and all
> > available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work."
> >
> > That totally eliminates any consideration about programming
> > "landscape" or
> > whether humans (or even human lawyers) can actually read the code. It
> > doesn't really matter how these works are to be used, whether
> > compiled or
> > interpreted or in some other form. As long as ASF has the rights we
> > need to
> > those copyrighted works, and enough "source code" to make it
> > possible for
> > appropriate humans with appropriate skills to do what we want with
> > them, we
> > can put those works into any form we find convenient to us and to our
> > customers.
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Craig.Russell@Sun.COM [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:29 PM
> >> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> >> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
> >>
> >> Hi Larry,
> >>
> >> Perhaps it would be good for you to comment on this:
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
> >>
> >> This is the working draft of Apache's third party license policy.
> >> CDDL license is included in the discussion. Since dtd and xsd files
> >> are neither strictly source nor binary, Sam Ruby has an action item
> >> to resolve where in the landscape xsd and dtd files fall.
> >>
> >> These files are source because humans can read them. They are binary
> >> because they are not compiled; they are used "as is" in deployed
> >> applications. They are neither source nor binary because they are not
> >> compiled but they are human-readable. The envelope please...
> >>
> >> Craig
> >>
> >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >>> As long as it is copyrighted, then why the concern about whether
> >>> it is
> >>> source or binary? Whatever form it is in is the form you got. Call
> >>> that
> >>> "source". Did you get enough source to satisfy ASF policies and
> >>> needs,
> >>> including to pass on enough information to enable Apache licenses
> >>> to do what
> >>> they need with the software downstream?
> >>>
> >>> /Larry
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:59 PM
> >>>> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> >>>> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; 'William A. Rowe, Jr.'
> >>>> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
> >>>>>> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
> >>>>>> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are they copyrighted works?
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes. Here is an example -- http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-
> >>>> jar_3_0.xsd
> >>>>
> >>>> Excerpted from this file:
> >>>>
> >>>> <xsd:documentation>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
> >>>>
> >>>> Copyright 2003-2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights
> >>>> reserved.
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>>
> >>>> When distributing the software, include this License Header
> >>>> Notice in each file and include the License file at
> >>>> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. Sun designates this
> >>>> particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as
> >>>> provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License
> >>>> file
> >>>> that accompanied this code. If applicable, add the
> >>>> following
> >>>> below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by
> >>>> brackets []
> >>>> replaced by your own identifying information:
> >>>> "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
> >>>>
> >>>> Contributor(s):
> >>>>
> >>>> If you wish your version of this file to be governed by
> >>>> only the
> >>>> CDDL or only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by
> >>>> adding
> >>>> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this
> >>>> distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
> >>>> If you
> >>>> don't indicate a single choice of license, a recipient
> >>>> has the
> >>>> option to distribute your version of this file under either
> >>>> the
> >>>> CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license
> >>>> to its
> >>>> licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL
> >>>> Version 2
> >>>> code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then
> >>>> the
> >>>> option applies only if the new code is made subject to such
> >>>> option by the copyright holder.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> </xsd:documentation>
> >>>>
> >>>> --kevan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> -
> >>> 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!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Larry,
In Cliff's draft, there is an assumption that source code is intended
to be modified, and therefore source code licensed under the CDDL is
suspect.
The issue for specification dtd and xsd files is that they lose their
value when modified, in that they no longer reflect the specification
for which they are issued. So it's not clear how your definition
"preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications" would
apply.
Therefore, I have suggested that it is useful to treat specification
xsd and dtd files licensed under CDDL as if they were binary, using
the definition of binary as "not intended to be modified".
I'm hoping that at some point here, we can all agree that
specification CDDL-licensed xsd and dtd files are redistributable in
Apache bundles. And that Sam and Cliff can agree on the rationale for
doing so and incorporate the reasoning into the official 3party
policy. So we don't have to have this discussion every few months.
Craig
On Aug 1, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> I read and reviewed Cliff's draft many months ago and thought it
> was very
> nice. I hope I don't have to read it again soon. :-)
>
> My point was only this: The definition of source code is sometimes
> confusing
> in our industry. Here's how I define it in OSL/AFL 3.0, and there are
> similar definitions in other licenses: "The term 'Source Code'
> means the
> preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it
> and all
> available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work."
>
> That totally eliminates any consideration about programming
> "landscape" or
> whether humans (or even human lawyers) can actually read the code. It
> doesn't really matter how these works are to be used, whether
> compiled or
> interpreted or in some other form. As long as ASF has the rights we
> need to
> those copyrighted works, and enough "source code" to make it
> possible for
> appropriate humans with appropriate skills to do what we want with
> them, we
> can put those works into any form we find convenient to us and to our
> customers.
>
> /Larry
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Craig.Russell@Sun.COM [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:29 PM
>> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
>>
>> Hi Larry,
>>
>> Perhaps it would be good for you to comment on this:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>>
>> This is the working draft of Apache's third party license policy.
>> CDDL license is included in the discussion. Since dtd and xsd files
>> are neither strictly source nor binary, Sam Ruby has an action item
>> to resolve where in the landscape xsd and dtd files fall.
>>
>> These files are source because humans can read them. They are binary
>> because they are not compiled; they are used "as is" in deployed
>> applications. They are neither source nor binary because they are not
>> compiled but they are human-readable. The envelope please...
>>
>> Craig
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>>> As long as it is copyrighted, then why the concern about whether
>>> it is
>>> source or binary? Whatever form it is in is the form you got. Call
>>> that
>>> "source". Did you get enough source to satisfy ASF policies and
>>> needs,
>>> including to pass on enough information to enable Apache licenses
>>> to do what
>>> they need with the software downstream?
>>>
>>> /Larry
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:59 PM
>>>> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>>>> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; 'William A. Rowe, Jr.'
>>>> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
>>>>>> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
>>>>>> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are they copyrighted works?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. Here is an example -- http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-
>>>> jar_3_0.xsd
>>>>
>>>> Excerpted from this file:
>>>>
>>>> <xsd:documentation>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
>>>>
>>>> Copyright 2003-2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights
>>>> reserved.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> When distributing the software, include this License Header
>>>> Notice in each file and include the License file at
>>>> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. Sun designates this
>>>> particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as
>>>> provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License
>>>> file
>>>> that accompanied this code. If applicable, add the
>>>> following
>>>> below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by
>>>> brackets []
>>>> replaced by your own identifying information:
>>>> "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
>>>>
>>>> Contributor(s):
>>>>
>>>> If you wish your version of this file to be governed by
>>>> only the
>>>> CDDL or only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by
>>>> adding
>>>> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this
>>>> distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>>>> If you
>>>> don't indicate a single choice of license, a recipient
>>>> has the
>>>> option to distribute your version of this file under either
>>>> the
>>>> CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license
>>>> to its
>>>> licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL
>>>> Version 2
>>>> code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then
>>>> the
>>>> option applies only if the new code is made subject to such
>>>> option by the copyright holder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> </xsd:documentation>
>>>>
>>>> --kevan
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> 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: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
I read and reviewed Cliff's draft many months ago and thought it was very
nice. I hope I don't have to read it again soon. :-)
My point was only this: The definition of source code is sometimes confusing
in our industry. Here's how I define it in OSL/AFL 3.0, and there are
similar definitions in other licenses: "The term 'Source Code' means the
preferred form of the Original Work for making modifications to it and all
available documentation describing how to modify the Original Work."
That totally eliminates any consideration about programming "landscape" or
whether humans (or even human lawyers) can actually read the code. It
doesn't really matter how these works are to be used, whether compiled or
interpreted or in some other form. As long as ASF has the rights we need to
those copyrighted works, and enough "source code" to make it possible for
appropriate humans with appropriate skills to do what we want with them, we
can put those works into any form we find convenient to us and to our
customers.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig.Russell@Sun.COM [mailto:Craig.Russell@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 6:29 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> Perhaps it would be good for you to comment on this:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
>
> This is the working draft of Apache's third party license policy.
> CDDL license is included in the discussion. Since dtd and xsd files
> are neither strictly source nor binary, Sam Ruby has an action item
> to resolve where in the landscape xsd and dtd files fall.
>
> These files are source because humans can read them. They are binary
> because they are not compiled; they are used "as is" in deployed
> applications. They are neither source nor binary because they are not
> compiled but they are human-readable. The envelope please...
>
> Craig
>
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> > As long as it is copyrighted, then why the concern about whether it is
> > source or binary? Whatever form it is in is the form you got. Call
> > that
> > "source". Did you get enough source to satisfy ASF policies and needs,
> > including to pass on enough information to enable Apache licenses
> > to do what
> > they need with the software downstream?
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:59 PM
> >> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> >> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; 'William A. Rowe, Jr.'
> >> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >>>> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
> >>>> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
> >>>> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
> >>>
> >>> Are they copyrighted works?
> >>
> >> Yes. Here is an example -- http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-
> >> jar_3_0.xsd
> >>
> >> Excerpted from this file:
> >>
> >> <xsd:documentation>
> >>
> >>
> >> DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
> >>
> >> Copyright 2003-2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights
> >> reserved.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> When distributing the software, include this License Header
> >> Notice in each file and include the License file at
> >> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. Sun designates this
> >> particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as
> >> provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License
> >> file
> >> that accompanied this code. If applicable, add the following
> >> below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by
> >> brackets []
> >> replaced by your own identifying information:
> >> "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
> >>
> >> Contributor(s):
> >>
> >> If you wish your version of this file to be governed by
> >> only the
> >> CDDL or only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by
> >> adding
> >> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this
> >> distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
> >> If you
> >> don't indicate a single choice of license, a recipient has the
> >> option to distribute your version of this file under either
> >> the
> >> CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license
> >> to its
> >> licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL
> >> Version 2
> >> code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then
> >> the
> >> option applies only if the new code is made subject to such
> >> option by the copyright holder.
> >>
> >>
> >> </xsd:documentation>
> >>
> >> --kevan
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Larry,
Perhaps it would be good for you to comment on this:
http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html
This is the working draft of Apache's third party license policy.
CDDL license is included in the discussion. Since dtd and xsd files
are neither strictly source nor binary, Sam Ruby has an action item
to resolve where in the landscape xsd and dtd files fall.
These files are source because humans can read them. They are binary
because they are not compiled; they are used "as is" in deployed
applications. They are neither source nor binary because they are not
compiled but they are human-readable. The envelope please...
Craig
On Aug 1, 2007, at 6:13 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> As long as it is copyrighted, then why the concern about whether it is
> source or binary? Whatever form it is in is the form you got. Call
> that
> "source". Did you get enough source to satisfy ASF policies and needs,
> including to pass on enough information to enable Apache licenses
> to do what
> they need with the software downstream?
>
> /Larry
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:59 PM
>> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
>> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; 'William A. Rowe, Jr.'
>> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
>>
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>>
>>>> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
>>>> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
>>>> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
>>>
>>> Are they copyrighted works?
>>
>> Yes. Here is an example -- http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-
>> jar_3_0.xsd
>>
>> Excerpted from this file:
>>
>> <xsd:documentation>
>>
>>
>> DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
>>
>> Copyright 2003-2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights
>> reserved.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> When distributing the software, include this License Header
>> Notice in each file and include the License file at
>> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. Sun designates this
>> particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as
>> provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License
>> file
>> that accompanied this code. If applicable, add the following
>> below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by
>> brackets []
>> replaced by your own identifying information:
>> "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
>>
>> Contributor(s):
>>
>> If you wish your version of this file to be governed by
>> only the
>> CDDL or only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by
>> adding
>> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this
>> distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license."
>> If you
>> don't indicate a single choice of license, a recipient has the
>> option to distribute your version of this file under either
>> the
>> CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license
>> to its
>> licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL
>> Version 2
>> code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then
>> the
>> option applies only if the new code is made subject to such
>> option by the copyright holder.
>>
>>
>> </xsd:documentation>
>>
>> --kevan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
As long as it is copyrighted, then why the concern about whether it is
source or binary? Whatever form it is in is the form you got. Call that
"source". Did you get enough source to satisfy ASF policies and needs,
including to pass on enough information to enable Apache licenses to do what
they need with the software downstream?
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 4:59 PM
> To: lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Cc: legal-discuss@apache.org; 'William A. Rowe, Jr.'
> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
>
>
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> >> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
> >> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
> >> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
> >
> > Are they copyrighted works?
>
> Yes. Here is an example -- http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-
> jar_3_0.xsd
>
> Excerpted from this file:
>
> <xsd:documentation>
>
>
> DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
>
> Copyright 2003-2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
> 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.
>
> When distributing the software, include this License Header
> Notice in each file and include the License file at
> glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. Sun designates this
> particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as
> provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License file
> that accompanied this code. If applicable, add the following
> below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by brackets []
> replaced by your own identifying information:
> "Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
>
> Contributor(s):
>
> If you wish your version of this file to be governed by only the
> CDDL or only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by adding
> "[Contributor] elects to include this software in this
> distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license." If you
> don't indicate a single choice of license, a recipient has the
> option to distribute your version of this file under either the
> CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license to its
> licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL Version 2
> code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then the
> option applies only if the new code is made subject to such
> option by the copyright holder.
>
>
> </xsd:documentation>
>
> --kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
>> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
>> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
>
> Are they copyrighted works?
Yes. Here is an example -- http://java.sun.com/xml/ns/javaee/ejb-
jar_3_0.xsd
Excerpted from this file:
<xsd:documentation>
DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS HEADER.
Copyright 2003-2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved.
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.
When distributing the software, include this License Header
Notice in each file and include the License file at
glassfish/bootstrap/legal/LICENSE.txt. Sun designates this
particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as
provided by Sun in the GPL Version 2 section of the License file
that accompanied this code. If applicable, add the following
below the License Header, with the fields enclosed by brackets []
replaced by your own identifying information:
"Portions Copyrighted [year] [name of copyright owner]"
Contributor(s):
If you wish your version of this file to be governed by only the
CDDL or only the GPL Version 2, indicate your decision by adding
"[Contributor] elects to include this software in this
distribution under the [CDDL or GPL Version 2] license." If you
don't indicate a single choice of license, a recipient has the
option to distribute your version of this file under either the
CDDL, the GPL Version 2 or to extend the choice of license to its
licensees as provided above. However, if you add GPL Version 2
code and therefore, elected the GPL Version 2 license, then the
option applies only if the new code is made subject to such
option by the copyright holder.
</xsd:documentation>
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
RE: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
Are they copyrighted works?
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevan Miller [mailto:kevan.miller@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 3:51 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: William A. Rowe, Jr.
> Subject: Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
>
> Oops, resending to include legal-discuss...
>
> On Aug 1, 2007, at 4:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Kevan Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> The current draft of the 3rd party licensing policy --
> >> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html -- lists CDDL as a
> >> category
> >> B (binary license file). Assuming this is accurate, the question then
> >> becomes are dtd/xsd files source or binary?
> >
> > This was asked and answered; they are neither our conventional
> > definition
> > of source, nor an illegible binary format. They are sources are
> > not used
> > in any compiled form, and therefore any reciprocal or copyleft
> > requirement
> > is not a problem. They are always used in source form under any
> > application
> > and therefore meet the reciprocal or copyleft requirement in any
> > case without
> > additional license burdens for 'binary builds'.
> >
> > Does that make more sense?
> >
>
> Heh. Well, I confess I'm scratching my head a bit. Seems like we end
> up in the right place, but I'm not sure how we got there... ;-)
>
> Restating:
>
> It's ok to include CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files in an Apache product.
>
> xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
> Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
> inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
>
> --kevan
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
Oops, resending to include legal-discuss...
On Aug 1, 2007, at 4:34 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Kevan Miller wrote:
>>
>> The current draft of the 3rd party licensing policy --
>> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html -- lists CDDL as a
>> category
>> B (binary license file). Assuming this is accurate, the question then
>> becomes are dtd/xsd files source or binary?
>
> This was asked and answered; they are neither our conventional
> definition
> of source, nor an illegible binary format. They are sources are
> not used
> in any compiled form, and therefore any reciprocal or copyleft
> requirement
> is not a problem. They are always used in source form under any
> application
> and therefore meet the reciprocal or copyleft requirement in any
> case without
> additional license burdens for 'binary builds'.
>
> Does that make more sense?
>
Heh. Well, I confess I'm scratching my head a bit. Seems like we end
up in the right place, but I'm not sure how we got there... ;-)
Restating:
It's ok to include CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files in an Apache product.
xsd/dtd files are classified as neither source nor binary files.
Since the schemas are not source files, Apache policy restricting
inclusion of CDDL source files do not apply.
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Re: Distribution of CDDL licensed xsd and dtd files
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Kevan Miller wrote:
>
> The current draft of the 3rd party licensing policy --
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html -- lists CDDL as a category
> B (binary license file). Assuming this is accurate, the question then
> becomes are dtd/xsd files source or binary?
This was asked and answered; they are neither our conventional definition
of source, nor an illegible binary format. They are sources are not used
in any compiled form, and therefore any reciprocal or copyleft requirement
is not a problem. They are always used in source form under any application
and therefore meet the reciprocal or copyleft requirement in any case without
additional license burdens for 'binary builds'.
Does that make more sense?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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