[Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?

From: Markus Karg <>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:23:37 +0200

OT: That "pretty silly idea" comes from the copyright courses I attended at
college ;-) which clearly told me that a contract containing multiple items
is a union unless otherwise explicitly stated (that's why the salvatorian
rule is needed to prevent a contract from being void completely due to a
single rule being void). It is just not enough that you and me and everybody
would expect the licences to be optional or that Open Source projects always
work like that, if one day some Oracle lawyer thinks different and asks you
"Where is that written?" and you just have no proof because Oracle's web
site is changed meanwhile. And be sure, if Oracle one day wants to find
something against you (out of what ever reason), the first thing they will
do *is* purely scanning source code, as the code is a standalone unit and
has absolutely *no* relationship to anything on the web, since the web is
volatile and possibly taken off-line at the time you want to find that
single link that once told you that you had been allowed to fork...
Understood? In our business all is about copyrights and law suites and
making the most money out of an asset. And Oracle is in the same business.
The business is not writing software but buying assets and make the most
money out of it. The business is to make people pay money for licences. Open
Source is just a way to get assets for free or get improvements of assets
for free. What makes you so confident that Mr Ellison doesn't want to pick
the brilliant source you developed as a fork and ask you later to give him
20% of all the revenue you made from it just because you forked it from
Jersey and Jersey is his asset? What will you do then, without a written
note *in the source* that it was allowed? Remember the SCO UNIX case. That's
why people make written and complex licence contracts instead of relying on
common sense. If there is further need for discussing this, I want to
propose that we're taking this thread offline and go by PM, as Marek
proposed already. I just answered in the mailing list because you asked in
the list.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tatu Saloranta []
> Sent: Dienstag, 12. April 2011 18:36
> To:
> Subject: [Jersey] Re: SVN, GIT or MERCURIAL for Jersey 2.0?
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Markus Karg <> wrote:
> > Cam,
> >
> > unfortunately your assumption is not correct in most countries. No
> need
> > to be a lawer. Things are just simple as this: Unless Oracle
> explicitly
> > allows you to remove the CDDL tags from the source, the CDDL applies
> to
> > your fork, still. It is written nowhere that *you* can choose for one
> > the licences. So it is common sense that it *us* a union unless you
> gain
> No, typically multiple licenses are offered as true choices.
> Otherwise, what would be the point?
> I don't know where you get the idea of fork having to conform to all
> choices -- that's pretty silly idea, consider dual licensing with GPL
> and other licenses, where licenses are not compatible.
> As others have pointed out, there is difference between what you do
> with the code, including forking, and what is done for Oracle to
> accept
> contributions. In latter case -- and only in that case -- does
> contributor have to give permission to license contributions under all
> licenses.
> By the way, existence or not of tags in source is by no means
> definition of what applies. Legal contracts are bit more complicated
> matters than simple scanning of source code.
> -+ Tatu +-