Re: CCDL versus ASF

[Matthias Wessendorf <mw...@gmail.com>]

Are there any updates on this issue already ?

Be able to use CDDL based components will bring us fast forward to
ship a JSF 1.2 compilant jsf impl, since the glasfish project contains
an implementation of unified el stuff.

-Matthias

On 8/12/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the info!
> 
> ok, so we will read the notes of the board meeting ;)
> 
> regards,
> 
> Martin
> 
> On 8/12/05, Cliff Schmidt <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am hoping to get a Board resolution next week on the topic of
> > distributing both MPL and CDDL-licensed works.
> >
> > Cliff
> >
> > On 8/12/05, Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks Dan for your information - is there anyone from our fellow ASFers
> > > well versed in legal stuff willing to comment on that?
> > >
> > >  regards,
> > >
> > >  Martin
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/11/05, Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com> wrote:
> > > > Its an MPL derivitive, and while I don't have the legal knowledge
> > > > necesssary to address your question, I found an interesting summary of
> > > > the changes (disclaimer: from sun)
> > > >
> > > > * Fixed the "Effect of New Versions" problem. We added an option to
> > > > make Covered Software available under a specific version of the
> > > > license, rather than allowing the use of future license versions.
> > > > This change was made to make the license more reusable by others:
> > > > it addresses the concern that the license steward could change the
> > > > terms of the license in ways that are not compatible with a
> > > > community's (and the Initial Developer's) values and objectives.
> > > > * Focused the "patent peace" provisions to cover only software
> > > > released under this license. We felt that this would make the
> > > > license more acceptable to a diverse community of contributors,
> > > > whether large or small. We strengthened the the penalties of the
> > > > remaining provision, however, since we do believe that "patent
> > > > peace" has an important role to play in open source licenses.
> > > > * Simplified many of the Required Notices (or in a few cases,
> > > > removed the requirement) since they seemed overly specific and
> > > > burdensome.
> > > > * Clarified the definition of Modifications, to make it easier for
> > > > readers to understand what is covered by the license and what is not.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > More info:
> > > > http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_why_summary.html
> > > > http://www.sun.com/cddl/CDDL_MPL_redline.pdf
> > > > http://www.sun.com/cddl/
> > > >
> > > > I am curious as to the ASF's stance on this as well. Nearly everything
> > > > Sun is licensed under or is going to be under the CDDL now.
> > > >
> > > > - Dan
> > > >
> > > > Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi *,
> > > > >
> > > > > MyFaces would like to include Facelets support as a rendering
> > > > > technology...
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, Facelets is under the Sun CDDL.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.sun.com/cddl/
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we include and distribute software under this license with Apache
> > > > > MyFaces?
> > > > >
> > > > > I have looked into the license, and found nothing that would speak
> > > > > against it, but I am not an expert, and furthermore my English is far
> > > > > from perfect ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > Can anyone clear this up for us?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please cc your conclusion - or any parts of the discussion you want
> > > > > feedback from us or deem interesting to us - with
> > > > > dev@myfaces.apache.org <ma...@myfaces.apache.org>.
> > > > >
> > > > > regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dan Diephouse
> > > > Envoi Solutions LLC
> > > > http://netzooid.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> 
> http://www.irian.at
> Your JSF powerhouse -
> JSF Trainings in English and German
> 


-- 
Matthias Wessendorf
Zülpicher Wall 12, 239
50674 Köln