Re: Netcomponents - Q about license

["Daniel F. Savarese" <df...@savarese.org>]

In message <Pi...@beholder.brekke.org>, "Jeff
rey D. Brekke" writes:
>If you do find a solution or change that may be useful to the rest of us, 
>please consider providing the changes back to the community so they may be 
>integrated into the source code.
>
>On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, Kenneth C wrote:
>> include netcomponent's FTP module to accomplish the internet file transfer 
>> functionality of our product. But upon testing we discovered that the FTP 
>> module, when run, will display sensitive information such as passwords. I 

When I read stuff like this (Kenneth's comments, not Jeff's), it scares me
because it means people use software without reading and understanding
the license and also without understanding what the software does.  Jeff
already addressed the licensing part, and I can understand that even
obvious licensing questions need to be asked to be absolutely sure one is
interpreting the license correctly.  However, when it comes to code, I just
don't get it.  The "FTP module" does NOT print sensitive information such
as passwords or any other information for that matter.  The FTP _demonstration_
program prints all protocol command exchanges so you can see what's going on
because it is a demo program and uses the demonstration PrintCommandListener
implementation of the ProtocolCommandListener interface to print command
exchanges.  org/apache/commons/net/ftp/FTPClient.java is the "FTP module"
example/ftp.java is a simple example showing how one might use FTPClient.
Modify them as you wish as long as you observe the Apache Software License
contained at the top of each source file.  However, make sure you understand
what you're doing.  Again, FTPCLient does not print any information, nor
does any class in the net packages.  The demonstration programs (e.g.,
ftp.java, mail.java, post.java) use a demonstration PrintCommandListener to
print message exchanges so you can get an idea of how to use a
ProtocolCommandListener and so you can see what the demonstration programs
actually do.  I hope this clears up the apparent misconception.

daniel

Re: Netcomponents - Q about license

[Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>]

On Samedi, déce 28, 2002, at 02:36 Europe/Brussels, Henri Yandell wrote:
> Maybe you're right though, more of these questions from users would 
> force
> more contexts to be considered and the community's understanding of the
> concepts to improve.

The thing is, of course, that where the hard to understand licenses 
are, there is no forum. Java Servlets or Jaxp for example...

 From time to time, one sees an article about the newest surprises of 
this or that licenses. For example microsoft obtaining the right to 
install software on my machine (a Mac in this case) which should 
protect copyright of authors...

Maybe such initiatives as ODRL (http://www.odrl.net) and the 
implementations related to this (which turn the odrl-encoded license 
into rights and prohibitions) would also turn more attention to this.

I'm sure it would actually: if you have a program that tells you you 
may or may not, a good computer-scientist, if offended by the "may" or 
"may not", would want to go into there. And a good hacker will want to 
know wether it's a bug of the system, a bug of the encoded-license, 
or... a real license intent...

Paul

Re: Netcomponents - Q about license

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Sat, 28 Dec 2002, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

>
> On Vendredi, d�ce 27, 2002, at 04:02 Europe/Brussels, Daniel F.
> Savarese wrote:
>
> I entirely agree with you that it is scary, however, for a newbie, I do
> understand it is not that easy to grasp both the usage of the library
> and the license issues. The page:
>    http://www.savarese.org/oro/downloads/NetComponentsLicense.html
> shows one license type, somewhat personal, whereas the Apache
> Foundation ownership seems to be present at some places...

Dual licensing is very confusing yes. I wish opensource.org had their own
licence which allowed a user to use the code under any of the licences
they classed as open-source :)

> I would actually love more of these questions in the Apache lists, very
> few people care about licenses and sometimes you really get surprises
> (not with LGPL or Apache though, but from Sun's licenses for example).

It always seems to be a relative waste of time though. Much of the text of
a licence is in relatively plain english, but the application to contexts
seems to not be defined due to lack of any legal precedence. Licence
discussions seem to often end with lots of IANALing and little in the way
of a definite answer.

Maybe you're right though, more of these questions from users would force
more contexts to be considered and the community's understanding of the
concepts to improve.

Hen

Re: Netcomponents - Q about license

[Paul Libbrecht <pa...@activemath.org>]

On Vendredi, déce 27, 2002, at 04:02 Europe/Brussels, Daniel F. 
Savarese wrote:
> When I read stuff like this (Kenneth's comments, not Jeff's), it 
> scares me
> because it means people use software without reading and understanding
> the license and also without understanding what the software does.  
> Jeff
> already addressed the licensing part, and I can understand that even
> obvious licensing questions need to be asked to be absolutely sure one 
> is
> interpreting the license correctly.

I entirely agree with you that it is scary, however, for a newbie, I do 
understand it is not that easy to grasp both the usage of the library 
and the license issues. The page:
   http://www.savarese.org/oro/downloads/NetComponentsLicense.html
shows one license type, somewhat personal, whereas the Apache 
Foundation ownership seems to be present at some places...

This is yet another example which shows that licenses need to be 
supported by programs that interprete them and should have more space 
at least within browsers, packages (like jars) and tools that import or 
declare dependencies (in particular, something like Maven project's 
dependency elements).

The question of Kenneth is not that elementary: the only way I could 
answer it would be: if you get the Apache license, you must quote the 
usage, if you get the LGPL license, you have to republish your 
modification.
As far as I know, the example code is also covered by the license so 
Daniel's remark should only be interpreted as "look further, there are 
better uses than the example"...

I would actually love more of these questions in the Apache lists, very 
few people care about licenses and sometimes you really get surprises 
(not with LGPL or Apache though, but from Sun's licenses for example).

Paul