qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rajith Attapattu" <rajit...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Re : Dependencies and how it's going to affect the release
Date Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:14:49 GMT
We don't need to hand write code.
The Geronimo spec project allready has done that.

We can use the following release by them
        <dependency>
            <groupId>geronimo-spec</groupId>
            <artifactId>geronimo-spec-jms</artifactId>
            <version>1.1-rc4</version>
            <scope>compile</scope>
        </dependency>

As john points out we need to follow the legal stuff righ to the dot.

Rajith

On 11/7/06, John O'Hara <john.r.ohara@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> John
>
> 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
> >
>
>

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