qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Cliff Schmidt" <cliffschm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: SASL - Sun Community Source Licence for JSR28
Date Thu, 08 Feb 2007 06:18:45 GMT
On 2/7/07, Daniel Kulp <daniel.kulp@iona.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 10:26, Rupert Smith wrote:
> > I've noticed that recently a lot of Sun API jars have become available on
> > the Maven repository (Look under http://www.ibiblio.org/maven2/javax/).
> > This includes the JMS 1.1 API, for which we are currently using the one
> > found under org.apache.geronimo.specs.
>
> Actually, the jar isn't there.   Just a pom that if you use it, it says
> download it from.....
>
> > Sun jars under maven have always
> > been a bit of a problem because for licencing reasons they couldn't be
> > included in the repository. Now it seems that many of them are, presumably
> > because of Java itself becoming open sourced?
>
> I'd like to clear this up a bit....
>
> Many of the older Sun jars are appearing in the maven repository because Sun
> itself is having them put there.   (Actually, they've setup their own maven
> repository as well:https://maven-repository.dev.java.net/repository/)  The
> license on them still doesn't change.   The license would prevent anyone
> other than Sun from putting them there, but since Sun put it there, that's
> OK.
>
> For the newer CDDL based code, those can be submitted by anyone so those are
> appearing as well.
>
> The issue is the older non-cddl based jars (most are BCL) (JMS jar falls into
> this category).   Those need to be submitted by Sun.   However, BCL code
> cannot be shipped with an Apache project anyway.   Thus, if they're uploaded
> to maven or not doesn't change the fact that qpid cannot ship it.
>
> > If it is acceptable, I'd like to submit a request to get this JSR28 jar
> > added to the maven repository too, and to use it.
>
> IANAL, but getting it submitted to the maven repository should be fine (I
> think).    You would still need legal/Cliff to make sure it's ok to ship with
> the distributions.   It's not on the list of accepted licenses:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~cliffs/3party.html#criteriaandcategories

One of the criteria to allow incorporating a third-party component
into an ASF distribution is that the license meet the Open Source
Definition.  The SCSL does not meet the OSD.  You might want to check
with Sun and make sure they aren't planning on relicensing it under
the CDDL.

Cliff

Mime
View raw message