Mark Brouwer wrote:
> I understand, but I noticed the source code for standards such as JAF,
> JavaMail and JTA have been placed under the CDDL as part of the
> GlassFish project.
Thanks. That's good to know. I'll ask around and see if we can get a
better deal for JAXB.
> To clarify my reasons for asking. I have no intention to modify the spec
> API but I would like to be able to perform my own builds based on the
> source provided as this would (under the CDDL) allows me to ship the
> outcome of that build (Executable) under my own license. The problem
> with the current (source) distribution is that I accept the Work under
> the terms of the CDDL, but as some of the individual source files don't
> explicitly refer to the CDDL. As such I'm reluctant to distribute JAXB
> under the CDDL as I would have to make available the Source while the
> license headers are not 'clear' for the javax.xml namespace.
I'm bit confused as to which part of the above refers to the RI and
which part to the API, but I believe you can certainly redistribute API
jars.
You mentioned that "some of the individual source files don't explicitly
refer to the CDDL." Which files are they?
> I understand it will take some time, but there are some clear signals
> everything is heading in the right direction ;-)
My understanding is that the migration of 1.0 source code to CDDL is
complete. So if there's anything we are missing, we'd like to know.
P.S. I really wish all those licenses are much shorter...
--
Kohsuke Kawaguchi
Sun Microsystems kohsuke.kawaguchi_at_sun.com