Open Source license question....

My client is planning on using some code from a third party that uses BlazeDS 3.0.0.544. We've found some files that seem to have another license and my client isn't going to want to risk any possibility of license infringement.
Can anyone shed any light on the files in flex\messaging\services\messaging\selector (JMSSelector.java, NumericValue.java, PropertyValueComparator.java, SQLParser.jj in particular). These all have a license statement in their heading that indicates the contents are proprietary information belonging to Sun.
Have Adobe got an agreement with Sun to use these files?
Thanks, Chuck.

We met the same issue. We upgrade to BlazeDS 4.0.0 and by searching the source code we found several files under flex\messaging\services\messaging\selector((JMSSelector.java...) have the heading that indicates the contents are proprietary information belonging to Sun.
Anybody has any thought on it?
Thanks,
Sun

Similar Messages

  • Open Source Licensing - what do you use?

    I am soon going to release some public utilities i have coded. These programs / scripts are nothing big, however i need to license them with an open source standard (i have looked at the MIT and GNU). Id like:
    1. The code can be reused, modified, as long as the lisence stays intack and a reference to the original author is included (ie me)
    2. Mitigate me from any damages the code may cause if used in a correct or incorrect manner.
    I am a bit confused about the standards, but i thought id post here to see what everyone else uses / thinks ?

    I have a love/hate relationship with the GPL. Sure, I'd like my code to stay free, but otoh it puts off potential contributors (not that I've released anything worthwile yet).
    So even if I like the spirit of the GPL, I usually use BSD for my work. (BSD is also pretty common in the python world where I live mostly.) I might consider ISC for it's clarity in the future.
    WTFPL is also nice, but I guess not really "loved" by corporates .
    On another note:
    Runiq wrote:In Germany, if you don't license your work explicitly, normal copyright law applies, which means people aren't allowed to do anything with your stuff until like 70 years after, um, your death.
    Also keep in mind, that the concept of Public Domain doesn't exist in Germany, so you technically have to use a license for your work to make it usable in Germany.
    (I'm not sure, but I think this only applies if you release work while being a german citizen. Although it could be interesting to put a work under PD and then try and sue a german user under  german jurisdiction. )
    Last edited by jinks (2009-09-08 07:32:53)

  • Open Sourcing an iPhone Application acceptable under the License Agreement?

    I've read through the licensing agreement, but I'm still not convinced either way. I want to make my iPhone application's source code available on the internet and set up a project page and SVN repository on a site such as Google Code. I wouldn't be distributing my signing keys and would be the single source for submitting the app to iTunes. Is this allowed under the License Agreement?

    (Disclaimer: IANAL, I'm just a smart guy who's worked on GPL projects.)
    That isn't the relevant part of the iPhone license agreement. The GPLv2 (which is probably the most important open source license for this question, as it's both very popular and has restrictions on mixing with proprietary code) does not encompass headers and libraries that are part of the operating system. That's how people can write open source Windows and Mac applications--believe me, Microsoft would not be pleased if someone contacted them and said that since Gaim was open source, they had to release the source code to the Win32 API. So the GPLv2 would not attempt to "annex" anything provided by Apple, and thus it wouldn't violate that section.
    What may be relevant is the iPhone license section concerning confidentiality. If the class, method, function and constant names are considered "Apple Confidential Information", you would be in violation of the contract if you distributed code that revealed them. I rather suspect that nothing in the Foundation or Core Foundation frameworks could be considered confidential, as information about them is freely available to anyone who has the Mac OS X Core Library, which is distributed with every copy of Leopard. UIKit, Core Location, etc. are another story; I personally think that the fact that the APIs are included in the free SDK ought to preclude considering them confidential, but Apple might think differently.
    In other words: you're definitely safe using LGPLv2 libraries. If the code would also compile with the Mac OS X SDK, you're almost certainly safe releasing it under the GPLv2*. If the code uses UIKit or other frameworks documented in the free SDK, you may be safe releasing it under the GPLv2. If you release any code that uses APIs that only licensed developers have access to under the GPLv2, you're probably totally screwed.
    The GPLv3 is much stricter, and so the story there might be different; for example, I think it may have key-releasing requirements that would conflict with the contract. I don't really know much about it, though.
    \* Remember, the original copyright holder can create alternate licensing arrangements for specific people. So he can say "anyone can use this code under the GPL, and as a special exception, it can be linked against FooCorp's non-GPL software". But to use anyone else's GPL code, you'd have to get all of the authors of that code to agree to the same exception. Alternately, you can just release your own code under the LGPL instead and then it's all good.
    Message was edited by: Brent Royal-Gordon

  • [SOLVED]How licensing works in overall open source community.

    As the title suggests, i don't know much about licensing schemes in the world of software and computing.
    So, if there's anyone who can describe about overall licensing schemes i''l be glad, i just want to know some basic stuff like:
    How one can license "his/her/other" software under some of available licenses such as GPL/MIT.
    What is the best way to choose license for your software .
    What if you want to earn some money while giving your users complete freedom to do whatever with your software (that includes the source code).
    I know there is OSI but that stuff is little complicated for me as i'm no lawyer.
    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by speeider (2013-09-24 08:53:45)

    speeider wrote:I don't understand this quite a bit, Like what if i want to sell my software "say like, which is also available on github under GPL/MIT" what peculiarities does it contain "Does that mean the buyer can then remove it from github and make it a closed source"... i don't want that.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "remove it from github".  It is your github, unless you are handing out your password, no one can remove your code from github but you.  They can download a copy of it from github - as could anyone else could.
    If you license code under an open-source license, can the end-user recipient turn around and sell it as closed source: that depends on the specific license.  With a big 'AFAIK', LGPL allows this, while GPL and MIT do not.  But you chose the license, so you determine what you want to allow the licensee to do.  But even with the LGPL, unless they are making substantial additions to your code, I don't think there would be a purpose in them selling it.  LGPL is really for libraries that can be used as a component in closed source software.  If you released something freely and it was available on github, not many would buy it from someone else.
    If I offered to sell you a copy of dwm under a proprietary license, first you should laugh: why pay me for it, it's free already.  Second you should report it to the suckless team, as the license underwhich I recieved dwm does not allow me to redistribute under a proprietary license.
    Selling for a profit in my previous post was in reference to code that one writes themselves, not code they get from someone else.  No one can (legally) sell - or even redistribute for free - any code that someone else wrote, unless the original author has granted such permission (or if the original author left the permission wide open as in WTFYW type licenses or releasing it into the public domain).
    Selling licenses for profit will not ever be practical in open source, IMHO.  But there is nothing legally preventing it (in most cases).  Contract-coding does seem to be a much more practical approach.  And yet another practical approach is what I may do for some of my code used in research settings: academic researchers are always very worried about being "scooped" as a scientific publication can sometimes take years to get published.  If I accept a contract to write a tool that will help their work, they pay me, then I release it to everyone, then the researchers who paid me are at substantial risk.
    I've thought of two ways to solve this: a dual license, one with a "sundown" clause so it applies for a certain time window only.  But as I am not a lawyer, nor do I want to hire one, I went with a much simpler approach.  I'll release the code under a GPL license, but I will not publish the code publicly until the agreed upon time window is over.  So they pay me some $$$ to write a program.  I write it and give it to them under an open source license.  We sign an additional agreement that I will not provide the code nor the program to anyone else for 6 months.  After 6 months, I can post it on github.
    This example highlights one common misconception on open source licenses: the source code doesn't need to be publicly available.  Any licensee must be provided with the code, or a means of obtaining it (depending on the license).  But if I only license my program to that one team of researchers, they are the only ones I have to make the source code available to.  If they wanted, they certainly could redistribute that code before the 6 month term had passed - but they wouldn't, they are the ones benefiting from that 6 month window.
    EDIT: I went on a few tangents, back to the original question here:
    speeider wrote:I don't understand this quite a bit, Like what if i want to sell my software "say like, which is also available on github under GPL/MIT" what peculiarities does it contain "Does that mean the buyer can then remove it from github and make it a closed source"... i don't want that.
    Whether or not they can resell it under a proprietary license has nothing to do with whether they paid you for it.  It depends only on the license under which you provided it to them.  You *can* sell your code under a GPL license, but this is subject to the limitations due to practicality above.  If you post the code up on a public site like github with a GPL license, then try to sell it for a profit, you'll really get nothing.  There are enough consumers out there who say "why pay for it when I can download a copy for free."  They say this when 'downloading for free' is illegal, but selling GPL'ed code posted publicly on github would mean 'downloading for free' was legal.
    Last edited by Trilby (2013-09-16 12:08:31)

  • Can I distribute the open source SWF compiler with my application?

    I'm unclear reading the documentation if there is a difference between Adobe's official Flex SDK, and the open source version?
    Can I distribute the open source SWF compiler with my application?
    I have a flash application that users can change the fonts being displayed, if they supply the fonts in a compiled SWF. I found I can let the user select a font from their computer system, and using the mxmlc command I can easily generate a SWF with the font, which can be loaded by my application so the font will be part of the run time application when played on systems without that font already in the System fonts.
    I was wondering if I could distribute the open source SDK so that I could compile these font SWFs for the user so they would not have to get involved in complicated Flash development. The audience is non Flash audience.
    I tried using SWFMill but the fonts don't seem to work as they do with the mxmlc compile.
    Thank you,
    Scott Kerr

    Moreover check also the compatibility of your open source license with MPL
    Regards, Giuseppe

  • As mozilla is open source .so,if i will download someone else addons and then edit it by putting some new thing. Is this will be legal?

    I have downloaded a addon now I will edit it and put some new thing .
    so, can i do this thing.
    is it legal?

    Developers associate their addons with a certain type of license, which you can view by going to the addon's page at addons.mozilla.org, and expanding the "Version Information" section at the very bottom of the page.
    A huge percentage of Firefox addons are released under an open source license.

  • [ANNOUNCE] Ourfaces: Open Source Customer UI Components

    Hi,
    we have started an open source project with the aim to provide commonly needed customer JSF UI components. The project's name is Ourfaces.
    We are not implementing the JSF standard but like to share useful UI components based on the standard under the Sun Public License. Therefore the components can be used freely, can be customized or enhanced by everyone, and improvements should be given back to the community.
    Our vision is to have all commonly needed JSF UI components available under open source license - ready to plug them into any JSF supporting tool.
    However, we are starting modestly: We enhanced the tree component provided by the reference implementation and set up a project at java.net. We are trying to get the first component running robustly. Next component on the roadmap is a table component.
    If you are interested have a look at
    ourfaces.dev.java.net
    If you think that we are on the right way and you like to bring us a step further towards the vision, please, send me an e-mail.
    mailto:[email protected],
    Matthias Unverzagt

    Hi Matthias,
    Let me state upfront that I am running JSF1.0 and have some other apps running fine.
    I downloaded the new version. However, it looks a bit odd.
    I looked at the table examples.
    table/table.jsp is coded to use a tag called "ourfaces:panel_resultset". (Shown below) However this tag is not mentioned in the tld.
    Also, the tld for table is very small only two attributes.
    I tried to make the other examples work. But the tags are not even balanced. In:
    table/example1.jsp
    table/example2.jsp
    the view tag is not closed properly.
    As a result none of the table samples work.
    I do see the latest timestamps on the files.
    Please let me know if things are not quite ready yet?
    Thanks,
    Vinay
    //================================================
    <h:form formName="resultsForm" bundle="demoBundle">
    Rendered via Faces components:
    <ourfaces:panel_resultset
    columnClasses="list-column-center,list-column-left,
    list-column-center, list-column-right"
    headerClass="list-header"
    panelClass="list-background"
    rowClasses="list-row-even,list-row-odd"
    navFacetOrientation="NORTH"
    rowsPerPage="20">
    //================================================

  • Adobe gives us a creative license... does that include making sites open source?

    Hi this question has bugging me. I know Adboe gives the enduser a creative license. I was wondering how far that license goes. If someone created a site in dreamweaver and maybe even used some flash for a opensource Website would that be violating the EULA? I know that the DW EULA says something about trade secrets they fail to explain what that means. I could use as much clarification as possible! Thanks.

    thanks lawrence I didn't see your message. I was reading the forum from my email and sometimes my spam program throws away mail I want to keep. Thank you for the basic answer. I do get the drift . I can now code without having that question lingering in the back of my mind.
    I apologize for the confusion. I used the wrong word. I Meant to say General
    Public License instead of open source. Kinda like www.wordpress.com except
    they code in C. I want to make a Website and have it licensed under the GPL
    but I will  use  dreamweaver and flash to write some of the code and some of
    it will be handcoded. Does that violate the EULA? I just don't want to break
    any rules or step on any toes if you know what I mean... I hope you do.

  • Is mysql a free open source database or do you need a license for it in prd

    is mysql a free open source database or do you need a license for it in production.

    Hi,
    It should be free under GPL (General Public license).Usually it will comes with your operating system distribution (eg:RHEL)
    If you download it from Oracle site, it should have the commercial license tied to it, and you need to pay for that if it is in use for production.
    http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/index.html
    regards,
    mrak

  • Is there a firefox or best browser (except IE) for Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard? if so, is it free of charge (open source) forever? where can I get it? details. need answers to all questions

    is there a firefox or best browser (except IE) for Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard? if so, is it free of charge (open source) forever? where can I get it? details. need answers to all questions

    # As to what is the best browser, it is subjective. I think it is the best, others will disagree. There is no special version for Windows Server 2003, the usual version works on it.
    # It is free of charge and will always be free.
    # It is open source.
    # You can get it from http://www.mozilla.com

  • [solved]Open source hardware / firmware, what license to pick?

    Hi All,
    I want to create a opentherm gateway, so a normal PC can talk to several opentherm thermostats. I would like to release the firmware of the microcontroller, and also release the kicad files of he PCB.
    What is the best license to give the firmware? GPL2, GPL, or something different? What is the best license for the PCB files? Creative common, GPL2/3?
    I would like everybody to be able to use and adjust the files, but they must publish the changes.
    Best regards,
    Cedric
    Last edited by cdwijs (2013-03-23 19:42:47)

    jakobcreutzfeldt wrote:
    GPL et al only require source code changes to be published in the event that someone distributes a modified binary.
    Also, perhaps this is of interest to you?
    https://gnu.org/software/remotecontrol/
    Thanks, I should indeed have mentioned the distribution part. This is my first project I'm planning to do open source, so I never had to deal with a license before.
    I guess GPL 3 will work, I have no problem if anybody burns my code in a microcontroller, and sells it. As long as that person publishes their code I'm happy.
    Will GPL3 also work on the kicad files?
    Opentherm does not work over IP, instead it uses a serial protocol. Manchester encoded, and 4 bytes per message. I don't see how remotecontrol can be made to talk to it.
    The protocol seems to be under NDA, but a google search to "opentherm protocol" does yield a PDF with all the information
    Somebody else has already made an opentherm gateway, but I need to talk to 7 thermostats, instead of one.
    http://tclcode.com/opentherm/index.html#intro

  • Question about webos becoming open source

    Since webos is becoming open source, does this mean that HP will stop uplating and fixing it, or does it mean it will become open source in a similar way to the android OS?
    I really don't want to lose webos. I tried other os'es such as the blackberry crap, android 2.3 as well as android 4, windows phone 7 and ios and none have been as good as webos 3 when it comes to the UI.
    Post relates to: HP TouchPad (WiFi)

    The truth is we honestly don't know yet.  HP has not released their long term plans for webOS.

  • Bomber question - a commercial game open source

    I came across commerical J2ME game - Bomber at
    http://j2mebomber.sourceforge.net/
    But it is different from other open source J2me game in ways :
    1) Bomber project convert all images to a signle binary file
    http://chiu424.hypermart.net/intro.txt
    http://chiu424.hypermart.net/a.txt
    http://chiu424.hypermart.net/sound.txt
    http://chiu424.hypermart.net/level0.txt
    2) there is a utility called tobin.exe that takes a text file and output a binary file that includes all images / sounds
    3) here is a list of binary files for bomber ( sound + image )
    http://chiu424.hypermart.net/game.JPG
    ===============
    - Is there any tutorial on how to use ToBin.exe or other untility that covert images files to a single game data file that reads by J2ME game using InputStream and read byte by byte? it's somewhat confusing.
    - I had google more than 8 hours on info in using ToBin.exe with no luck, how it maps image to a single binary file, any tutorial on this?
    - it seems all commerical J2ME games read binary data file, instead of open PNG files one by one used by open source non - commerical games.

    i found this...
    1. Copy the Tobin.exe file from the floppy disk to the new directory.
    2. Because Tobin.exe is a self-extracting file, double-clicking the Tobin.exe file extracts the following four files:
    o Tobin16.exe (the utility)
    o Tobin16.hlp (the online Help file)
    o County.cde (a file containing the API county codes)
    o Tobin.doc (utility documentation)
    o ...
    here
    http://www.tobin.com/marketing_pages/documents/data_formats/tobin_to_geographix.htm
    did you install tobin.exe?

  • (To SUN DTS) Where is tcp.c in solaris 8 open source foundation?

    Dear SUN DTS,
    I have downloaded the solaris 8 open source foundation. But I cannot find tcp.c file. Ip.c was there as ip.c.export. Is this SUN's purpose not giving out the tcp.c, or this is someone's mistake when packaging. Without it, the source foundation is not complete.
    Thanks
    Ken

    Hi Ken,
    As per the source license agreement, you should pursue questions about the source with the product team on the Solaris 8 Foundation Source Discussion Forum.
    Sorry for any inconvenience.
    Best regards,
    Ralph
    SUN DTS

  • Legalities of modifying open source Java classes in a closed source App

    If there is a better forum for this thread please let me know. I looked and looked and couldn't find any place where it seemed to fit.
    Simply put, I want to know the legal ramifications of modifying open source Java classes which have been included in a commercial closed source application.
    The specifics are my problem with the javax.servlet.http.Cookie classes interpretation with RFC 2019 in regards to acceptable cookie names. I currently am debating that in a thread here:
    http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5313146
    I am using Adobe ColdFusion which is a J2EE application server running as a servlet in Macromedia JRun. JRun parses request headers and creates instances of the javax.servlet.http.Cookie class for each cookie. (An error is thrown from the constructor if the cookie name is not accepted)
    I was able to work around the problem by modifying the code in the Cookie class, compiling it, and using jar.exe util in my SDK to update the new class into the jrun.jar file. I blogged it here:
    http://www.codersrevolution.com/index.cfm/2008/7/15/No-Cookie-For-You-Second-Solution
    My problem is I'm not sure if what I did conforms to the license for ColdFusion. Technically JRun is a closed source program I am not allowed to modify, but all I changed was a open source class from Sun. I didn't even need to decompile anything.
    I have Googled in vain, but I can't seem to find any information that applies to modifying pieces of open sourced code contained inside of a closed source application.

    bdw429s wrote:
    "I thought it was straightforward and I didn't feel that lawyers were necessary. But you didn't seem to want to do that."
    I'm unclear on whether you are implying that I didn't want to hire a lawyer or that I didn't want to read the licenses myself and make a decision. If you meant the former, you're darn right. I'm not paying anyone a dime to satisfy my personal acedemic curiosity concerning a random project I've been messing with in my spare time that isn't related to to any job or business decision. I'm simply looking for information because that's I do when I don't understand how something works. First, I Google the hell out of it and if I can't turn up satisfactory answers (or any at all) I find an applicable forum and ask there.
    If you were implying the latter (that I didn't want to read the licenses myself) then you haven't been reading my posts. I stated to jschell that I have no problem attempting to figure out a license agreement on my own. In fact, I have read the ColdFusion agreement from Adobe before posting here. I talks about modifying the software, but I still don't think it is crystal clear about whether third part code falls under it's own license AND Adobie's or just its own license. Then that is the point at which you must do one of the following
    1. Consult a lawyer.
    2. Decide to allow for a liberal interpretation (thus you can use the code) and understand that you personally are liable if your interpretation is wrong.
    3. Decide to allow for a conservative intepretation to avoid liable on your part.
    Regardless of what anyone says here it won't remove your own liability.
    >
    The source for the java.servlet.http.Cookie class stated that it is release under the Apache license 2.0 whcih I read up on. I will admit I'm not actually sure how to tell the exact verison of the Java Servlet API classes that JRun is built on other than to cross reference which version of the servlet API came out with which version of Java, but that is a suspect method. I have been programming for more than 8 years, but I'm relatively new to the Java landscape.
    I'm not looking for handouts here. I know this was a tough subject and I was prepared for NO ONE to respond and I would have been ok with that. I have no problems making decisions on my own and I have no intention of passing the buck to anybody.
    Here's the thing though. A useful response is one that states some facts (or opinions), references a similar peice of software for comparison, a court case, or provides a few links to some open source-type websites were I might find more information about my issue.
    Telling me to hire a lawyer and chastising me for "pass the buck" is doing about as much good as Linux snobs telling people to RTFM.
    Wrong.
    A lawyer is the best and most correct answer.
    And it is the first answer that should always be given with these sorts of questions.
    If you choose not to accept the best and most correct answer then that is up to you.
    I understand that a large number of people on public forums are lazy sponges who wish someone would just post all the code they need, but assure you I am not that person. I'll admit I don't know much about open source and I'm not sure where to start looking since I seem to have a scenario which is not really discussed much on the web. All I am looking for is information and sincere help.And presumably you also understand that we certainly can't give you legal advice but also it would be foolhardy for you to accept it as well.
    You learn by reading many license agreements and reading as much about legal situations involving computers and related technical cases as you can.
    And until you are comfortable making such decisions yourself without asking then the only useful answer is ask a lawyer.

Maybe you are looking for