qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "John O'Hara" <john.r.oh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re : Dependencies and how it's going to affect the release
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:09:04 GMT
Getting license details correct is critical.
It may be that we have to ship a build without these files and provide the
end user with an ANT or Maven task that fetches them.
That way it is the user doing the getting and complying with the license
concerned and its not our issue.

Does ActiveMQ ship JMS.jar from the Apache distribution?
It looks like they don't.

If this is the case, we may have to hand write those files again from the
published documentation on JMS.

The published documentation license would allow us to re-create the files
manually - or indeed just get the necessary interfaces from ActiveMQ, since
we're all part of the family.

This is a pain, but legal is legal is legal, no matter how stupid it seems.

But we need to be squeeky clean on this.

On 07/11/06, Martin Ritchie <ritchiem@apache.org> wrote:
> I've included the full text of the license with the jms.jar and the
> slf4j, backport and junit. The Saxon website says there code is open
> source but not what license. I found an RPM of saxon that claimed to
> be MPL, so we could include that. The rest of the libs are all apache.
> Do we really need a license file for them?
> On 07/11/06, Robert Greig <robert.j.greig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/11/06, Steve Vinoski <vinoski@iona.com> wrote:
> > > +1 to maven, which I've been working on for awhile. So far in doing
> > > the maven work I've been surprised by both 1) the number of
> > > dependencies, which is much higher than I expected, and 2) the
> > > dependencies which aren't really legal. The JMS jar is one.
> >
> > Here is the redistribution clause from the licence for JMS.jar:
> >
> > 2. License to Distribute Software.  In addition to
> >   the license granted in Section 1 (Software
> >   Internal Use and Development License Grant) of
> >   these Supplemental Terms, subject to the terms and
> >   conditions of this Agreement, including but not
> >   limited to Section 3 (Java Technology
> >   Restrictions), Sun grants you a non-exclusive,
> >   non-transferable, limited license to reproduce and
> >   distribute the Software in binary form only,
> >   provided that you (i) distribute the Software
> >   complete and unmodified and only bundled as part
> >   of your Programs, (ii) do not distribute
> >   additional software intended to replace any
> >   component(s) of the Software, (iii) do not remove
> >   or alter any proprietary legends or notices
> >   contained in the Software, (iv) only distribute
> >   the Software subject to a license agreement that
> >   protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms
> >   contained in this Agreement, and (v) agree to
> >   defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors from
> >   and against any damages, costs, liabilities,
> >   settlement amounts and/or expenses (including
> >   attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any
> >   claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that
> >   arises or results from the use or distribution of
> >   any and all Programs and/or Software.
> >
> > Does the Apache licence violate (iv)?
> >
> > RG
> >
> --
> Martin Ritchie

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message