You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com> on 2009/06/05 15:05:08 UTC
RE: Recently checked in Windows code
Ok, the situation is a bit better than I thought... This is the
license governing code samples from the msdn blog - I believe if I
insert this in the affected file, it's good.
I've cc'd legal-discuss for an opinion.
-Steve
MICROSOFT LIMITED PUBLIC LICENSE
This license governs use of code marked as "sample" available on this
Web Site without a License Agreement , as provided under the Section
above titled " NOTICE SPECIFIC TO SOFTWARE AVAILABLE ON THIS WEB SITE
". If you use such code (the "software"), you accept this license. If
you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
1. Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and
"distribution" have the same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or changes
to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under
this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read
directly on its contribution.
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including
the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license
to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its
contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works
that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the
license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its
licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale,
import, and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software
or derivative works of the contribution in the software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to
use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents
that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from
such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present
in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of
the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under
a license that complies with this license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it.
The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions.
You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which
this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local
laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and
non-infringement.
(F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B)
extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that
run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Huston [mailto:shuston@riverace.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 8:55 AM
> To: 'dev@qpid.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: Recently checked in Windows code
>
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> > I have some concerns about the copyright/licensing of the
> > following new checked in file:
>
> I understand... First, the code I checked in is not from the
> cited source - it changed along the way and I didn't update
> the attribution. However, the code that _is_ in the file is
> adapted from an MSDN blog posting - I'll check out what
> license, if any, applies to it and resolve as needed.
>
> Sorry for the sloppiness. I'll get it resolved ASAP.
>
> -Steve
>
> > ------------------------- cpp/src/tests/background.ps1
> > -------------------------
> > # From
> > http://ps1.soapyfrog.com/2007/01/22/running-pipelines-in-the-b
> ackground/
> # Copyright C 2006-2009 Adrian Milliner
> ...
>
> I couldn't tell if any of the code in the file is lifted from the
> website mentioned but the license on the page there is
> Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.
>
> In any event this code needs to have an apache license on it if it's
> original, but if the code is directly lifted from a website under
this
> CC license is it compatible with the apache licensing?
>
> Steve can you comment on the originality of the code?
>
> Sorry to be a pain, but the correct licensing of our code is
> important.
>
> Andrew
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
yah - the article that code is a companion to is dated 2003 (in the
HTML META), so that must be before they switched.
geir
On Jun 8, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> That's good to know.
>
> http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable1/src/TreeTableModel.java
> still says designed, licensed etc. Presumably because it's old legacy
> noise.
>
> I'll try to keep a better eye out for designed vs licensed when I see
> this type of thing crop up in the future.
>
> Hen
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>> If I remember right, the nuke clause was changed (in part from our
>> pushback
>> and general ridicule).
>>
>> It went from not being *licensed* for use in "nukular" facilities,
>> to there
>> being a statement that it wasn't "designed" for use in such things,
>> which
>> IMO removed the FOU restriction and still apparently lets Sun's
>> lawyers
>> sleep well at night knowing that you were on full notice that Sun
>> engineer's
>> didn't design GUI code with nuclear facilities in mind.
>>
>> geir
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Henri Yandell<hy...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Santiago Gala<santiago.gala@gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> (removed qpid as we drift off-topic for them)
>>>>>
>>>>> El sáb, 06-06-2009 a las 02:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr.
>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear
>>>>>>> facilities'
>>>>>>> license clause too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Java used to have this clause which forbid its use for air traffic
>>>>> control or operation of nuclear power plants, I don't think they
>>>>> are
>>>>> using it any more, and I was not aware of any other use of this
>>>>> clause.
>>>>> Are there examples of these clauses "in the wild" anymore?
>>>>
>>>> The air traffic bit was dropped at some point I think, but I
>>>> still see
>>>> the nuclear bit pop up. While Sun had lots of noise of moving to
>>>> CDDL
>>>> and then to CDDL/GPL; they often still release binaries from that
>>>> source under whatever pieced together terms their lawyers have
>>>> come up
>>>> with. Generally looking like the BCL license mixed with spec
>>>> license
>>>> pieces.
>>>>
>>>> There is also a BSD-like license from Sun that adds the nuclear
>>>> facility clause. I've seen that attached to sample code from Sun.
>>>
>>> Apologies for replying to myself.
>>>
>>> I mailed about Checkstyle a while back, that it contained Sun
>>> proprietary code. Discussion with the author of Checkstyle and
>>> investigation of Sun's site showed that it was from sample Swing
>>> code
>>> back in 2001-ish, which has subsequently been relicensed with no
>>> code
>>> change under BSD _with_ the nuclear facility clause. So Checkstyle's
>>> GUI has a field of use restriction. As Checkstyle doesn't ship a
>>> separate cmd line/lib jar from the gui jar, this means anyone
>>> redistributing Checkstyle has that.
>>>
>>> I'm not bothered in that worrying about a nuclear facility field of
>>> use restriction on a source code checker is a joke.
>>>
>>> Hen
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
That's good to know.
http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/treetable1/src/TreeTableModel.java
still says designed, licensed etc. Presumably because it's old legacy
noise.
I'll try to keep a better eye out for designed vs licensed when I see
this type of thing crop up in the future.
Hen
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr.<ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
> If I remember right, the nuke clause was changed (in part from our pushback
> and general ridicule).
>
> It went from not being *licensed* for use in "nukular" facilities, to there
> being a statement that it wasn't "designed" for use in such things, which
> IMO removed the FOU restriction and still apparently lets Sun's lawyers
> sleep well at night knowing that you were on full notice that Sun engineer's
> didn't design GUI code with nuclear facilities in mind.
>
> geir
>
> On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Henri Yandell<hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Santiago Gala<sa...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (removed qpid as we drift off-topic for them)
>>>>
>>>> El sáb, 06-06-2009 a las 02:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
>>>>>> license clause too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Java used to have this clause which forbid its use for air traffic
>>>> control or operation of nuclear power plants, I don't think they are
>>>> using it any more, and I was not aware of any other use of this clause.
>>>> Are there examples of these clauses "in the wild" anymore?
>>>
>>> The air traffic bit was dropped at some point I think, but I still see
>>> the nuclear bit pop up. While Sun had lots of noise of moving to CDDL
>>> and then to CDDL/GPL; they often still release binaries from that
>>> source under whatever pieced together terms their lawyers have come up
>>> with. Generally looking like the BCL license mixed with spec license
>>> pieces.
>>>
>>> There is also a BSD-like license from Sun that adds the nuclear
>>> facility clause. I've seen that attached to sample code from Sun.
>>
>> Apologies for replying to myself.
>>
>> I mailed about Checkstyle a while back, that it contained Sun
>> proprietary code. Discussion with the author of Checkstyle and
>> investigation of Sun's site showed that it was from sample Swing code
>> back in 2001-ish, which has subsequently been relicensed with no code
>> change under BSD _with_ the nuclear facility clause. So Checkstyle's
>> GUI has a field of use restriction. As Checkstyle doesn't ship a
>> separate cmd line/lib jar from the gui jar, this means anyone
>> redistributing Checkstyle has that.
>>
>> I'm not bothered in that worrying about a nuclear facility field of
>> use restriction on a source code checker is a joke.
>>
>> Hen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@pobox.com>.
If I remember right, the nuke clause was changed (in part from our
pushback and general ridicule).
It went from not being *licensed* for use in "nukular" facilities, to
there being a statement that it wasn't "designed" for use in such
things, which IMO removed the FOU restriction and still apparently
lets Sun's lawyers sleep well at night knowing that you were on full
notice that Sun engineer's didn't design GUI code with nuclear
facilities in mind.
geir
On Jun 8, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Henri Yandell<hy...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Santiago
>> Gala<sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> (removed qpid as we drift off-topic for them)
>>>
>>> El sáb, 06-06-2009 a las 02:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. escribió:
>>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>>>> Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
>>>>> license clause too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Java used to have this clause which forbid its use for air traffic
>>> control or operation of nuclear power plants, I don't think they are
>>> using it any more, and I was not aware of any other use of this
>>> clause.
>>> Are there examples of these clauses "in the wild" anymore?
>>
>> The air traffic bit was dropped at some point I think, but I still
>> see
>> the nuclear bit pop up. While Sun had lots of noise of moving to CDDL
>> and then to CDDL/GPL; they often still release binaries from that
>> source under whatever pieced together terms their lawyers have come
>> up
>> with. Generally looking like the BCL license mixed with spec license
>> pieces.
>>
>> There is also a BSD-like license from Sun that adds the nuclear
>> facility clause. I've seen that attached to sample code from Sun.
>
> Apologies for replying to myself.
>
> I mailed about Checkstyle a while back, that it contained Sun
> proprietary code. Discussion with the author of Checkstyle and
> investigation of Sun's site showed that it was from sample Swing code
> back in 2001-ish, which has subsequently been relicensed with no code
> change under BSD _with_ the nuclear facility clause. So Checkstyle's
> GUI has a field of use restriction. As Checkstyle doesn't ship a
> separate cmd line/lib jar from the gui jar, this means anyone
> redistributing Checkstyle has that.
>
> I'm not bothered in that worrying about a nuclear facility field of
> use restriction on a source code checker is a joke.
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 11:34 PM, Henri Yandell<hy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Santiago Gala<sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> (removed qpid as we drift off-topic for them)
>>
>> El sáb, 06-06-2009 a las 02:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. escribió:
>>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>>> > Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
>>> > license clause too.
>>>
>>>
>>> Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
>>>
>>
>> Java used to have this clause which forbid its use for air traffic
>> control or operation of nuclear power plants, I don't think they are
>> using it any more, and I was not aware of any other use of this clause.
>> Are there examples of these clauses "in the wild" anymore?
>
> The air traffic bit was dropped at some point I think, but I still see
> the nuclear bit pop up. While Sun had lots of noise of moving to CDDL
> and then to CDDL/GPL; they often still release binaries from that
> source under whatever pieced together terms their lawyers have come up
> with. Generally looking like the BCL license mixed with spec license
> pieces.
>
> There is also a BSD-like license from Sun that adds the nuclear
> facility clause. I've seen that attached to sample code from Sun.
Apologies for replying to myself.
I mailed about Checkstyle a while back, that it contained Sun
proprietary code. Discussion with the author of Checkstyle and
investigation of Sun's site showed that it was from sample Swing code
back in 2001-ish, which has subsequently been relicensed with no code
change under BSD _with_ the nuclear facility clause. So Checkstyle's
GUI has a field of use restriction. As Checkstyle doesn't ship a
separate cmd line/lib jar from the gui jar, this means anyone
redistributing Checkstyle has that.
I'm not bothered in that worrying about a nuclear facility field of
use restriction on a source code checker is a joke.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Santiago Gala<sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (removed qpid as we drift off-topic for them)
>
> El sáb, 06-06-2009 a las 02:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. escribió:
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> > Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
>> > license clause too.
>>
>>
>> Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
>>
>
> Java used to have this clause which forbid its use for air traffic
> control or operation of nuclear power plants, I don't think they are
> using it any more, and I was not aware of any other use of this clause.
> Are there examples of these clauses "in the wild" anymore?
The air traffic bit was dropped at some point I think, but I still see
the nuclear bit pop up. While Sun had lots of noise of moving to CDDL
and then to CDDL/GPL; they often still release binaries from that
source under whatever pieced together terms their lawyers have come up
with. Generally looking like the BCL license mixed with spec license
pieces.
There is also a BSD-like license from Sun that adds the nuclear
facility clause. I've seen that attached to sample code from Sun.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Santiago Gala <sa...@gmail.com>.
(removed qpid as we drift off-topic for them)
El sáb, 06-06-2009 a las 02:27 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. escribió:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
> > license clause too.
>
>
> Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
>
Java used to have this clause which forbid its use for air traffic
control or operation of nuclear power plants, I don't think they are
using it any more, and I was not aware of any other use of this clause.
Are there examples of these clauses "in the wild" anymore?
> We love nuclear patent clauses :)
>
(Being pedant) I'd use MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) rather than
nuclear. Nowadays the scenarios of nuclear deployment or use are not
aimed to MAD, i.e., to non-use, anymore, but to regional re-equilibrium.
See North Korea, Israel/Iran, etc.
Regards
Santiago
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
> license clause too.
Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
We love nuclear patent clauses :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
> license clause too.
Huh? Oh - nuclear facilities, not nuclear clauses.
We love nuclear patent clauses :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Steve Huston wrote:
>>
>> (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B)
>> extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that
>> run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
>
> Field of use restricted licensing is prohibited at the ASF, so this falls
> under the Category X of our licensing handling.
Agreed. I've added this to the list of Category X licenses.
Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
license clause too.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Henri Yandell <hy...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 7:07 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Steve Huston wrote:
>>
>> (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B)
>> extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that
>> run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
>
> Field of use restricted licensing is prohibited at the ASF, so this falls
> under the Category X of our licensing handling.
Agreed. I've added this to the list of Category X licenses.
Need to find a good way to add the stupid 'no nuclear facilities'
license clause too.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Ok, William - I'm going to have to rewrite the affected code and
remove the snippet taken from the MSDN blog.
Thanks very much for the quick review.
-Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Recently checked in Windows code
>
>
> Steve Huston wrote:
> >
> > (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections
> 2(A) & 2(B)
> > extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
that
> > run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
>
> Field of use restricted licensing is prohibited at the ASF,
> so this falls
> under the Category X of our licensing handling.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by Steve Huston <sh...@riverace.com>.
Ok, William - I'm going to have to rewrite the affected code and
remove the snippet taken from the MSDN blog.
Thanks very much for the quick review.
-Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 10:08 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> Cc: dev@qpid.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Recently checked in Windows code
>
>
> Steve Huston wrote:
> >
> > (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections
> 2(A) & 2(B)
> > extend only to the software or derivative works that you create
that
> > run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
>
> Field of use restricted licensing is prohibited at the ASF,
> so this falls
> under the Category X of our licensing handling.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
> Project: http://qpid.apache.org
> Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Steve Huston wrote:
>
> (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B)
> extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that
> run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
Field of use restricted licensing is prohibited at the ASF, so this falls
under the Category X of our licensing handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Recently checked in Windows code
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Steve Huston wrote:
>
> (F) Platform Limitation- The licenses granted in sections 2(A) & 2(B)
> extend only to the software or derivative works that you create that
> run on a Microsoft Windows operating system product.
Field of use restricted licensing is prohibited at the ASF, so this falls
under the Category X of our licensing handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project: http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org