On Sat, 2003-02-01 at 16:24, Stephen McConnell wrote: > Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: > > > > > > > Berin Loritsch wrote: > > > >> Stephen McConnell wrote: > > > > ... > > > >>> Also - what/where are the license details related to the Concurrency > >>> package? > >> > >> > >> Public domain. (I.e. no license, no control). > > > > > > Hmmm... > > > > I don't think we can use packages with no license at all. IANAL, but > > wouldn't it mean that no license == no grant of use? But actually it's > > in the public domain, so it would be ridiculous that the author > > doesn't it want to be used. > > > I had the same thoughts. I'm not happy with depedencies on something > that does not have a license. I would prefer that we took the content, > repackaged it under the org.apache.avalon.something namespace and issued > a release under the Apache license. > > > > > Can we rely on public domain packages and put them in CVS? > > > > I would like to get a higher opinion on this - Sam?, Greg?
In the two cases that I know of it's perfectly fine. The Concurrent code is Doug Lea's so it's pretty safe to say it's just fine. It's going into Tiger with small changes from it's present state. The other package is Antlr which is also just fine. Terence Parr, the main Antlr fellow, refuses to take part in any licensing issues whatsoever so puts everything in the public domain. It means you can do whatever you want with it. It also means the author has no legal recourse in the event of a lawsuit as there is no disclaimer as such that is present in the Apache license. As a user of the code you're perfectly safe. > Cheers, Steve. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
