You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@xml.apache.org by "Theodore W. Leung" <tw...@sauria.com> on 2002/02/05 00:09:06 UTC
[3rd party jar] crimson-ant
The crinson-ant jar appears to be a copy of the ASF crimson parser.
It only appears in xml-batik/lib/build.
This is a problem caused by importing a copy of ant in the
distribution. The long term solution for this is for the Ant folks to
correctly license their jars.
In the mean time,e need to check in a copy of the ASF 1.1 license as
xml-batik/lib/build/crimson-ant.LICENSE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@covalent.net>.
On 5 Feb 2002, Theodore W. Leung wrote:
> My understanding - via Dirk is that according to US law, a file without
> a license is undistributable, and that includes our own jars,
> unfortunately.
Correct - a (c) righted file which does not have a license at all cannot
be redistributed. Simply capturing the license under which it was obtained
solves this.
If the author does not provide such license - then it by default can be
used by those the author chooses to provides it to (which can be the world
- if you can download it from their site) - but they cannot re-distribute
it to others. Even if those others would simply be able to download it
from the origianl site - it cannot go through a middle men. Unfortunate
but it is the way it is.
Experience has learned that it is usually no problem in those case to
work with the author and have him add a one line license saying that it
can be re-distributed - or work with the author to have the ASF obtain a
license allowing the ASF to redistribue it from its site (i.e. akin to a
'mirror').
Dw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@covalent.net>.
On 5 Feb 2002, Theodore W. Leung wrote:
> My understanding - via Dirk is that according to US law, a file without
> a license is undistributable, and that includes our own jars,
> unfortunately.
Correct - a (c) righted file which does not have a license at all cannot
be redistributed. Simply capturing the license under which it was obtained
solves this.
If the author does not provide such license - then it by default can be
used by those the author chooses to provides it to (which can be the world
- if you can download it from their site) - but they cannot re-distribute
it to others. Even if those others would simply be able to download it
from the origianl site - it cannot go through a middle men. Unfortunate
but it is the way it is.
Experience has learned that it is usually no problem in those case to
work with the author and have him add a one line license saying that it
can be re-distributed - or work with the author to have the ASF obtain a
license allowing the ASF to redistribue it from its site (i.e. akin to a
'mirror').
Dw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by "Theodore W. Leung" <tw...@sauria.com>.
My understanding - via Dirk is that according to US law, a file without
a license is undistributable, and that includes our own jars,
unfortunately.
Dirk, can you expand on this if I haven't got it right?
Ted
On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 00:42, Vincent Hardy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following Dirk's email on third-party jars we have addressed the license
> issues in Batik on third-party jars (which was the point of the email),
> not on jars coming from Apache code. Note that this only required moving
> and renaming the license that we already included for the only real
> 3rd party jar we have.
>
> This is why we have not added license/readme for crimson, ant and jaxp
> which come from Apache and we did not consider as 3rd party (we think
> of the various Apache projects as being part of the same family, not
> third party).
>
> About jaxp, the commiter who added it to the Batik repository pointed
> that the source code was available under the Apache license in
> xml-commons
> so an additional license seemed superfluous:
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/
>
> may be Edwin could tell us if we got the wrong impression.
>
> It is not a big deal to add a license for Apache jars, but
> I would like to understand why it is needed, as these are not
> third party jars.
>
> If the point is to document every single jar so that we
> are extremely clear as to where the jars come from, then that sounds
> like
> a good idea: it is better to communicate a little too much than too
> little.
>
> Thanks for clarifying why we need the license on Apache jars.
> Cheers,
> Vincent Hardy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by "Theodore W. Leung" <tw...@sauria.com>.
My understanding - via Dirk is that according to US law, a file without
a license is undistributable, and that includes our own jars,
unfortunately.
Dirk, can you expand on this if I haven't got it right?
Ted
On Tue, 2002-02-05 at 00:42, Vincent Hardy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Following Dirk's email on third-party jars we have addressed the license
> issues in Batik on third-party jars (which was the point of the email),
> not on jars coming from Apache code. Note that this only required moving
> and renaming the license that we already included for the only real
> 3rd party jar we have.
>
> This is why we have not added license/readme for crimson, ant and jaxp
> which come from Apache and we did not consider as 3rd party (we think
> of the various Apache projects as being part of the same family, not
> third party).
>
> About jaxp, the commiter who added it to the Batik repository pointed
> that the source code was available under the Apache license in
> xml-commons
> so an additional license seemed superfluous:
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/
>
> may be Edwin could tell us if we got the wrong impression.
>
> It is not a big deal to add a license for Apache jars, but
> I would like to understand why it is needed, as these are not
> third party jars.
>
> If the point is to document every single jar so that we
> are extremely clear as to where the jars come from, then that sounds
> like
> a good idea: it is better to communicate a little too much than too
> little.
>
> Thanks for clarifying why we need the license on Apache jars.
> Cheers,
> Vincent Hardy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Edwin Goei wrote:
>
> ..
> > There are different versions of Crimson. Old versions used a jaxp.jar
> > binary from Sun that shipped w/ the Sun Binary Code License. Newer
> > versions of Crimson use code from xml-commons that are under the ASF
> > license. So the fix is to use a newer version of Crimson. If the
> > reason you are using the old "jaxp.jar" is because of Ant, then you can
> > upgrade to a newer version of Ant that uses a newer version of Crimson.
> >
> > BTW, I don't think anyone at Sun really cares that jaxp.jar is being
> > distributed by Apache, but the PMC does which is the reason for this
> > fire drill.
>
> Ack.
>
> Unfortunately - to the best of my knowledge we have however never gotten
> the required license from Sun to allow distribution of the old jaxp.jar.
> So it is fair to conclude their lawyers/IP guardians care enough :-)
Not sure what you are saying exactly in your last sentence, but I'd
interpret Sun's behavior to mean that management has lots of tasks to
work on and this particular license issue w/ jaxp.jar and Apache ends up
being very low priority. In this case, we don't even need the old
jaxp.jar so the problem is solved.
>
> Obviously - if required you can get assistance from the ASF should you
> want us to go back to Sun and try agian to negotioate such.
>
> But given that the new jaxp.jar is 100% ASF, supersedes the old one and
> has all the features needed to replace the old one - it does not make much
> sense. Thanks for solving this !
Yup.
-Edwin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Edwin Goei wrote:
>
> ..
> > There are different versions of Crimson. Old versions used a jaxp.jar
> > binary from Sun that shipped w/ the Sun Binary Code License. Newer
> > versions of Crimson use code from xml-commons that are under the ASF
> > license. So the fix is to use a newer version of Crimson. If the
> > reason you are using the old "jaxp.jar" is because of Ant, then you can
> > upgrade to a newer version of Ant that uses a newer version of Crimson.
> >
> > BTW, I don't think anyone at Sun really cares that jaxp.jar is being
> > distributed by Apache, but the PMC does which is the reason for this
> > fire drill.
>
> Ack.
>
> Unfortunately - to the best of my knowledge we have however never gotten
> the required license from Sun to allow distribution of the old jaxp.jar.
> So it is fair to conclude their lawyers/IP guardians care enough :-)
Not sure what you are saying exactly in your last sentence, but I'd
interpret Sun's behavior to mean that management has lots of tasks to
work on and this particular license issue w/ jaxp.jar and Apache ends up
being very low priority. In this case, we don't even need the old
jaxp.jar so the problem is solved.
>
> Obviously - if required you can get assistance from the ASF should you
> want us to go back to Sun and try agian to negotioate such.
>
> But given that the new jaxp.jar is 100% ASF, supersedes the old one and
> has all the features needed to replace the old one - it does not make much
> sense. Thanks for solving this !
Yup.
-Edwin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@covalent.net>.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Edwin Goei wrote:
..
> There are different versions of Crimson. Old versions used a jaxp.jar
> binary from Sun that shipped w/ the Sun Binary Code License. Newer
> versions of Crimson use code from xml-commons that are under the ASF
> license. So the fix is to use a newer version of Crimson. If the
> reason you are using the old "jaxp.jar" is because of Ant, then you can
> upgrade to a newer version of Ant that uses a newer version of Crimson.
>
> BTW, I don't think anyone at Sun really cares that jaxp.jar is being
> distributed by Apache, but the PMC does which is the reason for this
> fire drill.
Ack.
Unfortunately - to the best of my knowledge we have however never gotten
the required license from Sun to allow distribution of the old jaxp.jar.
So it is fair to conclude their lawyers/IP guardians care enough :-)
Obviously - if required you can get assistance from the ASF should you
want us to go back to Sun and try agian to negotioate such.
But given that the new jaxp.jar is 100% ASF, supersedes the old one and
has all the features needed to replace the old one - it does not make much
sense. Thanks for solving this !
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@covalent.net>.
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Edwin Goei wrote:
..
> There are different versions of Crimson. Old versions used a jaxp.jar
> binary from Sun that shipped w/ the Sun Binary Code License. Newer
> versions of Crimson use code from xml-commons that are under the ASF
> license. So the fix is to use a newer version of Crimson. If the
> reason you are using the old "jaxp.jar" is because of Ant, then you can
> upgrade to a newer version of Ant that uses a newer version of Crimson.
>
> BTW, I don't think anyone at Sun really cares that jaxp.jar is being
> distributed by Apache, but the PMC does which is the reason for this
> fire drill.
Ack.
Unfortunately - to the best of my knowledge we have however never gotten
the required license from Sun to allow distribution of the old jaxp.jar.
So it is fair to conclude their lawyers/IP guardians care enough :-)
Obviously - if required you can get assistance from the ASF should you
want us to go back to Sun and try agian to negotioate such.
But given that the new jaxp.jar is 100% ASF, supersedes the old one and
has all the features needed to replace the old one - it does not make much
sense. Thanks for solving this !
Dw
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
Vincent Hardy wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Following Dirk's email on third-party jars we have addressed the license
> issues in Batik on third-party jars (which was the point of the email),
> not on jars coming from Apache code. Note that this only required moving
> and renaming the license that we already included for the only real
> 3rd party jar we have.
>
> This is why we have not added license/readme for crimson, ant and jaxp
> which come from Apache and we did not consider as 3rd party (we think
> of the various Apache projects as being part of the same family, not
> third party).
>
> About jaxp, the commiter who added it to the Batik repository pointed
> that the source code was available under the Apache license in
> xml-commons
> so an additional license seemed superfluous:
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/
>
> may be Edwin could tell us if we got the wrong impression.
There are different versions of Crimson. Old versions used a jaxp.jar
binary from Sun that shipped w/ the Sun Binary Code License. Newer
versions of Crimson use code from xml-commons that are under the ASF
license. So the fix is to use a newer version of Crimson. If the
reason you are using the old "jaxp.jar" is because of Ant, then you can
upgrade to a newer version of Ant that uses a newer version of Crimson.
BTW, I don't think anyone at Sun really cares that jaxp.jar is being
distributed by Apache, but the PMC does which is the reason for this
fire drill.
-Edwin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant, crimson-parser, jaxp
Posted by Vincent Hardy <vi...@sun.com>.
Hello,
Following Dirk's email on third-party jars we have addressed the license
issues in Batik on third-party jars (which was the point of the email),
not on jars coming from Apache code. Note that this only required moving
and renaming the license that we already included for the only real
3rd party jar we have.
This is why we have not added license/readme for crimson, ant and jaxp
which come from Apache and we did not consider as 3rd party (we think
of the various Apache projects as being part of the same family, not
third party).
About jaxp, the commiter who added it to the Batik repository pointed
that the source code was available under the Apache license in
xml-commons
so an additional license seemed superfluous:
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/xml-commons/java/external/src/javax/xml/parsers/
may be Edwin could tell us if we got the wrong impression.
It is not a big deal to add a license for Apache jars, but
I would like to understand why it is needed, as these are not
third party jars.
If the point is to document every single jar so that we
are extremely clear as to where the jars come from, then that sounds
like
a good idea: it is better to communicate a little too much than too
little.
Thanks for clarifying why we need the license on Apache jars.
Cheers,
Vincent Hardy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant
Posted by Edwin Goei <ed...@sun.com>.
Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> On 05 Feb 2002, Theodore W. Leung <tw...@sauria.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 22:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> >> Do we need to include an extra LICENSE.crimson
> >
> > I think so.
>
> OK, it has been a bit more difficult than I thought as Crimson doesn't
> have a LICENSE in its own distribution. Ant's CVS now includes an
> explicit LICENSE.crimson and the next distribution will ship with it,
> so that projects that import Ant completely (which is wrong IMHO),
> will have it as well.
Fixed. I've added a LICENSE file to the xml-crimson repository and it
will get added to the next crimson distribution. You can grab the
LICENSE file at the tip of the xml-crimson repository if you want.
BTW, the LICENSE file is just the first part of the header that is at
the top of each src file in crimson (minus the RCS header info), since
it looks like xml-xerces does it this way.
-Edwin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 05 Feb 2002, Theodore W. Leung <tw...@sauria.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 22:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> Do we need to include an extra LICENSE.crimson
>
> I think so.
OK, it has been a bit more difficult than I thought as Crimson doesn't
have a LICENSE in its own distribution. Ant's CVS now includes an
explicit LICENSE.crimson and the next distribution will ship with it,
so that projects that import Ant completely (which is wrong IMHO),
will have it as well.
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant
Posted by "Theodore W. Leung" <tw...@sauria.com>.
On Mon, 2002-02-04 at 22:24, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> On 04 Feb 2002, Theodore W. Leung <tw...@sauria.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a problem caused by importing a copy of ant in the
> > distribution. The long term solution for this is for the Ant folks
> > to correctly license their jars.
>
> Could you please expand this - what do we need to do to correctly
> license "our" jars?
According to Dirk we must include a license file for our own jars (seems
odd, to me also) because U.S law essentially says that a jar file w/o a
license is undistributable.
> Current CVS contains Crimson 1.1.3 and a README file right next to the
> jar that reads:
>
> >> This directory contains crimson.jar from the 1.1.3 release of
> >> Apache Crimson. For more information or newer releases see
> >> <http://xml.apache.org/crimson/>.
>
> Do we need to include an extra LICENSE.crimson even if it uses the
> same license as all other files that are part of the distribution (the
> next, not the last one which shipped with JAXP 1.1 RI)?
I think so.
> Thanks
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 04 Feb 2002, Theodore W. Leung <tw...@sauria.com> wrote:
> This is a problem caused by importing a copy of ant in the
> distribution. The long term solution for this is for the Ant folks
> to correctly license their jars.
Could you please expand this - what do we need to do to correctly
license "our" jars?
Current CVS contains Crimson 1.1.3 and a README file right next to the
jar that reads:
>> This directory contains crimson.jar from the 1.1.3 release of
>> Apache Crimson. For more information or newer releases see
>> <http://xml.apache.org/crimson/>.
Do we need to include an extra LICENSE.crimson even if it uses the
same license as all other files that are part of the distribution (the
next, not the last one which shipped with JAXP 1.1 RI)?
Thanks
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In case of troubles, e-mail: webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
Re: [3rd party jar] crimson-ant
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On 04 Feb 2002, Theodore W. Leung <tw...@sauria.com> wrote:
> This is a problem caused by importing a copy of ant in the
> distribution. The long term solution for this is for the Ant folks
> to correctly license their jars.
Could you please expand this - what do we need to do to correctly
license "our" jars?
Current CVS contains Crimson 1.1.3 and a README file right next to the
jar that reads:
>> This directory contains crimson.jar from the 1.1.3 release of
>> Apache Crimson. For more information or newer releases see
>> <http://xml.apache.org/crimson/>.
Do we need to include an extra LICENSE.crimson even if it uses the
same license as all other files that are part of the distribution (the
next, not the last one which shipped with JAXP 1.1 RI)?
Thanks
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: batik-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-dev-help@xml.apache.org