Bill Barker wrote:
I agree with Yoav that we can afford to wait a few days (if only so I don't
have to take down the 3.3.2 binary distro :). However, I don't think that,
without the ASF changing it's position, we can simply add some lines to the
LICENSE file. That may work in C land, but in Java land it's the LGPL
argument all over again.
I agree we can wait a few days until we reach a consensus.
IMHO, since we'd have to drop JMX and the Windows installer to ship from ASF, B) is the only reasonable choice.
We would have to drop the Windows installer as well :(
Here is a reply I got from the community list :
Quoting Henri Gomez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> Should I understand that we could no more include third-party jars in >> ASF products, for example mx4j jars in Tomcat ?
This is not a complete prohibition on all third-party jars or libraries, but only on those third-party libraries which are licensed under terms more restrictive than the ASL.
In the case of mx4j, the code is licenced under the mx4j 1.0 License [1], which
is a derivative of the ASL 1.1 license and therefore may potentially be included
in ASF works.
However, mx4j is a good example because apparently it includes code licensed
under the Jetty and Jython licenses [2]. While I am not intimately familiar
with mx4j, this may mean that the total legal effect of using mx4j is not
contained within the mx4j license alone, but is in fact a combination of the
terms of the three licenses. Since this combination may in fact be more
restrictive than the terms in the mx4j license alone, the library may not be in
the clear to be used by ASF projects. To confirm this, one would need to
investigate all three licenses, understand which parts of mx4j fall outside of
its own license, and then come to a decision on how the library can be used in
the ASF.
It is exactly this sort of confusion the ASF would like to avoid. While the
mx4j developers may in fact be perfectly in compliance with using the Jetty and
Jython licenses, users of mx4j will have to take into consideration not one, but
_three_ licenses in order to determine how to legally use the library.
Therefore, for the sake of our users it is best if an ASF product as a whole is
licensed under terms no more restrictive than those set out in the ASL 2.0.
For further inquries (including a specific resolution to the mx4j issue), I would suggest subscribing to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
