www-repository mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@4quarters.com>
Subject Re: licensing issues for virtual artifacts (was RE: click through license support?)
Date Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:33:40 GMT
I'd like to jump in here.  I'm lazy and will go back and read all the 
threads later, but I've been overwhelmed recently, and just want to 
relay some info :)

I'm the Apache JCP rep, and have had some talks with Sun about this 
issue.  The object is to get a formal agreement from Sun to allow us to 
do this, without us having to try and interpret the license agreement.

That said, I'm going to go back through the thread and catch up.  If 
someone wants me to stop this activity with Sun, let me know.  
Otherwise, I will do what I can to make the whole issue go away for us.

geir


On Nov 20, 2003, at 6:53 PM, Tim Anderson wrote:

> Can you clarify the licensing issues further? I'm having trouble
> seeing what the problems are.
>
> Suppose ASF has the following link in the repository:
>   http://repo.apache.org/sun/jndi/1.2.1/jars/jndi-1.2.1.jar
>
> This is a virtual artifact, not hosted at ASF.
>
> Via http redirection and magic, a download tool:
> A. pops up a browser, requiring the user to accept Sun's license
> B. downloads the corresponding jndi-1_2_1.zip distribution
>    if and only if the user *manually* accepts the license
> C. caches the distribution locally
> D. extracts jndi.jar from the distribution for local use
>
> Taking the Sun license points one at a time:
> . "(i): you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and only
>    bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running, your Java
>    applets or applications ("Programs")"
>
>    I don't see a violation here. The repository is not distributing
>    JNDI - its facilitating its download.
>    The download tool is not distributing JNDI - its facilitating
>    its use by an application.
>    As far as I can tell, the only requirement is that the
>    onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the license.
>
> . "(ii) the Programs add significant and primary
>    functionality to the Software,"
>
>    Again, the onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the 
> license.
>
> . "(iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
>    replace any component(s) of the Software"
>
>    Not violated by the repository nor the download tool.
>
> . "(iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
>    notices contained in the Software,"
>
>   When unpacking the distribution, the tool needs to ensure
>   that license information is retained.
>
> . "(v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license
>    agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms
>    contained in this Agreement, and"
>
>    Again, the onus is on the end user to satisfy this part of the 
> license.
>
> . "(vi) you 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."
>
>   The ASF has not distributed the software, so it can't be liable.
>
> If this has been discussed elsewhere, could you post a link?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tim
>
>> From: dion@multitask.com.au [mailto:dion@multitask.com.au]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2003 2:46 AM
>> To: repository@apache.org
>> Subject: Re: click through license support?
>>
>>
>> Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 19/11/2003 
>> 01:31:13 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> dion@multitask.com.au wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nicola Ken Barozzi <nicolaken@apache.org> wrote on 15/11/2003
>> 10:00:07
>> PM:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tim Anderson wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>>> A tool can 'screen scrape' the redirected page, prompt the user
>>>>>> to accept the license and only download if the license is 
>>>>>> accepted,
>>>>>
>>>>> If the tool is made to work like a web browser, ie show the pages 
>>>>> and
>>>>> then download when the user clicks on the button, IMHO it would be
>>>>> perfectly acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> But still illegal.
>>>
>>> I still don't understand why.
>>>
>>> I mean, if:
>>>
>>>   1-  the program opens the browser on the product download page
>>>   2 - the user does the download steps as usual
>>>   3 - the program gets the downloaded artifact from the local 
>>> download
>>>       location
>>>
>>> Why would we be breaking the license? The only difference between 
>>> this
>>> approach and the usual one is that the download location is linked.
>>>
>>>> We've been down this road and are working with Sun on a solution. We
>> have
>>>> (had?) a tool that would do the above in Maven ages ago.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm aware of that.
>>>
>>>> See http://maven.apache.org/sun-licensing-journey.html
>>>
>>> Very good that you have this page, thanks for the pointer.
>>
>> For example, the JavaMail v1.3 BCL has "Supplemental License Terms" 
>> which
>> state in Point 2. :
>>
>>  "...Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited 
>> license to
>> reproduce and distribute the
>> Software in binary code form only, provided that (i) you distribute 
>> the
>> Software complete and
>> unmodified and only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of
>> running, your Java applets or
>> applications ("Programs"), (ii) the Programs add significant and 
>> primary
>> functionality to the
>> Software, (iii) you do not distribute additional software intended to
>> replace any component(s) of
>> the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends 
>> or
>> notices contained in the
>> Software, (v) you only distribute the Software subject to a license
>> agreement that protects Sun's
>> interests consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and 
>> (vi)
>> you 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."
>>
>> I don't think a repository for distributing jars fits the
>> requirements for
>> (i) or (ii), and may possibly break (iii).
>>
>> And I don't think the ASF would like to agree to (vi).
>> --
>> dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
>> Blog:      http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                   203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com


Mime
View raw message