Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ run-time licensing

[Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wow, those eclipse guys are fast.  As I suspected, that FAQ entry is
very out of date and should be deleted/rewritten.  With everything
under EPL, the terms of the EPL are all that applies.  As sent to me:

----
Since aspectjrt.jar is licensed under the EPL, the provisions of the EPL
would apply[1]. Specifically, the terms of Section 3 which outlines the
licensing requirements for distributing binaries. If the license happens to
be commercial then the terms of Section 4 would also apply. Those sections
certainly allow users/adopters to distribute the JAR file with their
programs royalty-free.

I would like to suggest that the AspectJ project somehow mark this FAQ as
out-of-date and perhaps work on creating a new one? We would be happy to
help with the licensing sections. I suspect that most of the relevant
content would be available already in our EPL FAQ[2] and guide to legal
documentation[3].

[1] http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/epl-v10.php
[2] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/eplfaq.php
[3] http://www.eclipse.org/legal/guidetolegaldoc.php
---

Andy

2009/10/13 Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Mike,
>
> I've sent an email to Eclipse legal - hopefully they'll be in touch in
> the next few days.
>
> Andy
>
> 2009/10/12 McSherry, Mike <mcsherry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Andy et al.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’d very much appreciate if the project folks could get the Eclipse IP team
>> to lend some guidance in clarifying the license exception terms for
>> aspectjrt.jar.  We need a clear understanding of what terms from the EPL
>> apply (or not) for the inclusion and redistribution of aspectjrt.jar in our
>> commerical product.
>>
>>
>>
>> What can we do to initiate a response on this, and in what timeframe could
>> we expect a clarification?
>>
>>
>>
>> Our developers are anxious to move forward, but we need to address this
>> legal question before they are given the go-ahead.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [aspectj-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Ramnivas Laddad [ramnivas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 1:06 PM
>> To: aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [aspectj-users] AspectJ run-time licensing
>>
>> SpringSource dm Server has a similar situation, so you may be interested in
>> the following:
>> http://www.springsource.com//products/dmserver/licensingfaq
>> -Ramnivas
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Wim Deblauwe <wim.deblauwe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> There is some information on the EPL on wikipedia:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License
>>>
>>> What i find most striking is that it is not compatible with the GPL, so as
>>> I understand it, you cannot build a GPL application or library using
>>> aspectJ. Can somebody confirm this?
>>>
>>> regards,
>>>
>>> Wim
>>>
>>> 2009/10/5 Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately - I'm not a lawyer either and basically agree with
>>>> Ramnivas. But I would say the AspectJ FAQ is very overdue an update
>>>> (and wasn't written by a lawyer originally) - it still references the
>>>> CPL when we moved to EPL many releases ago.  However, I'd say there is
>>>> no intention to trick anyone here, and my interpretation is simply
>>>> that you need to ship aspectjrt.jar as-is (without removing any of
>>>> it).  We could maybe ask the Eclipse IP team for some guidance, but
>>>> I've not had to do that before and aspectjrt.jar has been shipped with
>>>> many products in the past (not just open source projects).
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/10/2 McSherry, Mike <mcsherry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> > Greetings,
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm interested in the license exception noted in the FAQ, which Jacob
>>>> > Bower
>>>> > also referenced.  If distributing only 'aspectjrt.jar' as part of my
>>>> > product, I read it as only the warranty disclaimers being applicable.
>>>> > Referring to the EPL license text, that would be solely the terms noted
>>>> > in
>>>> > "Section 5: NO WARRANTY"?
>>>> >
>>>> > Is that indeed the extent of the terms which are applicable to
>>>> > distributing
>>>> > ‘aspectjrt.jar’?
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd greatly appreciate clarification on this from the project leads,
>>>> > since
>>>> > I'm not a lawyer either, but I have to work with them.
>>>> >
>>>> > --Mike
>>>> >
>>>> > Jacob Bower wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I had got the impression that distribution generally wasn't going to be
>>>> > an
>>>> > issue.
>>>> >
>>>> > However, I'm trying to understand what my obligations are in terms of
>>>> > for
>>>> > example making the end user view the EPL?
>>>> >
>>>> > - Jacob
>>>> >
>>>> > 2009/7/13 Ramnivas Laddad <ramnivas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> > <mailto:ramnivas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>>> >
>>>> >     I am not a lawyer, but I do not think there are any restrictions
>>>> >
>>>> >     on redistributing aspectjrt.jar (or any of the the AspectJ jars).
>>>> >
>>>> >     For example, aspectjrt.jar is distributed with many SpringSource
>>>> >
>>>> >     products (open source as well as commercial).
>>>> >
>>>> >     -Ramnivas
>>>> >
>>>> >     On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Jacob Bower <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> >
>>>> >     <mailto:jacob@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >         Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> >         I'm developing a Java library which will be distributed in jar
>>>> >
>>>> >         form. In developing this library I have used AspectJ 1.6.5 and
>>>> >
>>>> >         the resulting binary will include code woven in by the ajc
>>>> >
>>>> >         compiler. To distribute this library I will need to distribute
>>>> >
>>>> >         the AspectJ run-time. Users of the library will not need to
>>>> >
>>>> >         use ajc to compile their code as all relevant joinpoints are
>>>> >
>>>> >         internal to the library.
>>>> >
>>>> >         In this case, what are the restrictions on distributing the
>>>> >
>>>> >         AspectJ run-time. Can I include the aspectj.jar (or its
>>>> >
>>>> >         conents) in my own jar with no notices?
>>>> >
>>>> >         I've consulted the AspectJ FAQ on this matter, but I am
>>>> >
>>>> >         unclear on how I'm supposed to preserve the warranty
>>>> >
>>>> >         disclaimers in the license.
>>>> >
>>>> >         Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> >         Jacob
>>>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
>>
>>
>