atom feed8 messages in Legal issues in re-bundling some ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Guillaume NodetMar 11, 2008 2:09 pm 
Henri YandellMar 11, 2008 2:29 pm 
Alan CabreraMar 11, 2008 3:04 pm 
Sam RubyMar 11, 2008 3:29 pm 
Alan CabreraMar 11, 2008 4:24 pm 
Henri YandellMar 11, 2008 10:19 pm 
Sam RubyMar 12, 2008 11:06 am 
Henri YandellMar 12, 2008 2:38 pm 
Subject:Re: Legal issues in re-bundling some binary dependencies
From:Henri Yandell (
Date:Mar 11, 2008 10:19:21 pm

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Alan Cabrera <> wrote:

On Mar 11, 2008, at 2:09 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:

ServiceMix 4 is being developed based on OSGi. OSGi require all the jars to be "OSGi bundles", which means that they contain some OSGi specific entries in the jar manifest. Lots of our dependencies are not already OSGi bundles, so we need to repackage those so that we can acutally use them. The process is to extract / unzip the jar, modify the manifest and repackage it under another name. I just found that it may be a problem for jars categorized as "binary license compatible" with the ASL: I'm mainly thinking about CDDL for a few sun jars that we need, namely jaxb2 spec jar, jaxb2 implementation and saaj implementation which are all under CDDL. Is my assumption right that such jars can not be modified and distributed and that such restrictions does not apply for BSD style, public domain, CPL and AL2 ?

The OSGi additions are merely descriptions of the jar in a canonical form, per OSGi. They are additions to the jar driven by the contents of the jar and are not modifications. To be sure the manifest is modified but that is part of its raison d'etre; the file is there for others to also be able to jam in their information in.

"Modifications" is described by CDDL (and the MPL family of licenses in general iirc) as additions or deletions to a file under the CDDL.

So changes to the manifest, if it is under CDDL, are intended to be CDDL. And changes to the jar are very arguably intended to be CDDL [would depend on whether you argue it's an executable or a zip I think].

The point in distributing binaries for jars w/ reciprocal licenses, IIUC, is that there is less exposed surface area of the third-party work from which a work might be derived. In this case modifications by users are not built on top of these OSGi descriptions; they cannot provide the toe hold that binary distributions are meant to minimize. Instead, the OSGi descriptions would change, if at all, to accurately describe the new jar.

IMO, I think it's kosher.

If we are happy producing original content under CDDL, then it would be fine. I think in this use case, we should go ahead and allow it, adding the use case of:

"Insertion of OSGi metadata into CDDL licensed jars is permitted; even though that metadata becomes CDDL licensed when it is put in the jar"

We should consider adding CPL/EPL/MPL to that use case too.

Any thoughts? Is anyone violently opposed to the ASF technically creating non AL 2.0 material in this case; and under a license more restrictive than AL 2.0?