Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 21678
external/common/*.jar: are they proprietary or not?
Last modified: 2009-07-20 14:40:29 UTC
In oo_1.1_src/external/common/ , four .jars are provided without the corresponding sources. No license is specified for these .jars; under which license can they be used? If it's LGPL, please add sources to the OOo source tarball, otherwise clarify under which license they are released.
Confirm.
not dual licensed LGPL/SISSL, documentation will follow.
committed README.[xt|jaxp] in external/common on mws_srx645 and HEAD for license informations. please also see http://external.openoffice.org/forms/xt.html please also see http://external.openoffice.org/forms/jaxp.html
We believe that, this way, this issue cannot be considered as RESOLVED/FIXED, because, due to the presence of external/jaxp.jar and external/parser.jar in the OOo source tarball, the OOo source tarball cannot be distributed under the terms of one of its licenses, i.e. the GPL/LGPL.
the source tar ball contains a lot of third party source code, which is not under LGPL/SISSL license. it's the task of the external project to document these exceptions. not integrating them into the source tar ball makes it very unconvinient for OOo developers to do a lot of extra downloads. putting addtional license.txt, copying* or readme file into those directories is quite common and IMHO a good compromise.
The OpenOffice.org site states everywhere that OpenOffice.org is open source and is under the LGPL+SISSL license. Just as an example: http://www.openoffice.org/license.html Due to the presence of external/jaxp.jar and external/parser.jar, the OOo source tarball is *not* open source and, in particular, cannot be redistributed under the terms of the LGPL/GPL. The argumentation of "good compromise" is not acceptable; if it would, the right thing would foresee integration also of JDK, unicows.dll, GPC, as an example, whereas they cannot be integrated in the OOo source tarball because they are not open source. Please fix asap this problem, either removing such software from the OOo source tarball, or delivering such jars under LGPL+SISSL. If none of the above solutions is acceptable, please notify everyone that the OOo source tarball contains proprietary software too, and hence it can not be considered open source.
I'm not sure in I understand you right: Is your point that these jar's are not LGPL/SISSL or not Open Source. I assume that you mean the latter because SCSL is not accepted as OS ?! If that is your point, I can follow your arguments.
Here, the issue is that the OOo project is distributing both binaries and sources for the OOo product. While on the OOo web site is written that the libraries' source code will be ruled by the LGPL, in the binary's readme is simple written that the **'Program** is ruled by GPL/LGPL or SISSL according to the choice made by the distributor and/or end user. Sun may have chosen to distribute the binaries under whatever license, but the option Sun chose includes the GPL/LGPL, so **everything** that is obligatory linked during the compiling phase must to be released as source code. It's true that LGPL allows to include binary products in the source code tarball too, but this is lawful **only** if the binaries are not LGPL too **and** the proprietary parts are not linked at compiling time as needed parts. Then, there is an additional argument: Sun is the copyright holder of the whole OOo code and likely of the jars code too. So, any distributor is, in good faith, assuming that Sun has re-licensed the whole binary under LGPL as stated in the readme file. Therefore, the request for the source code is fully lawful according to the LGPL clauses. Then, about the SCSL. This license contains the following clauses: ***GLOSSARY1. Commercial Use means any use (excluding Internal Deployment Use) or distribution, directly or indirectly of Compliant Covered Code by You to any third party, alone or bundled with any other software or hardware, for direct or indirect commercial or strategic gain or advantage, subject to execution of Attachment D by You and Original Contributor.*** and ***This Attachment D is effective only if signed below by You and Original Contributor, and applies to Your Commercial Use of Original Code and Upgraded Code.*** So it's clear that the commercial user/distributor in order to get the SCSL source code has to sign a contract or agreement with the Original Contributor (generally Sun). In fact, it is necessary to be registered to download the jars SCSL source code from the site you have sited in this issue. This behavior in unlawful according to clause 10 of the LGPL, where it's clearly stated that restrictions cannot be added to the LGPL clauses. Summing up, Sun may have distributed the OOo binaries under whatever license, but since it has choose GPL/LGPL as option for the whole binary (the **Program**) everything is included there must be distributed as LGPL (or GPL via LGPL upgrade option) source code too. Whatever is against a clause of the LGPL (SCSL parts or proprietary ones) have to be open sourced, removed or the binary/source tarball license must be changed from GPL/LGPL to something else.
gianluca, thank you for the explanation, I got your point. after some investigation I now have this status: the parser.jar and jaxp.jar are not included or integrated in the OpenOffice.org product. they are only used during the build process as tools. I investigate further if we have the possibility to drop these jars totally. please let me know if you have more questions.
Created attachment 11248 [details] tarball of files that allow to build OOo 1.1 without using jaxp.jar and parser.jar
The attached FIX_JARS.tar.gz contains the following files: fix_jars.sh, that removes some .jars not needed for the build, and, in particular, jaxp.jar and parser.jar fix_jars.patch, that patches the OOo 1.1.0 sources to allow to build without using jaxp.jar and parser.jar fix_jars.txt, that explains how to build OOo 1.1.0 replacing jaxp.jar and parser.jar with open source jars Marco Pratesi
reopened.
i think we can avoid these jars completly, I adjust target to 1.1.2 since not critical for application (lower p2), but I will try to make it for 1.1.1
retarget
reset target.
Hi, ugh. I just noticed this issue Friday. I always feared that... Anyway, the patch doesn't apply anymore to newer 1.1.x'es, attached to be in a moment is a updated patch (which I will use for the debs). For those who need to make the source clean of non-free stuff before this Issue is FIXED... Regards, Rene
Created attachment 18485 [details] updated patch
rene->pratesi: I have to remove those jars from our build and to still support Java-builds (we plan on doing an openoffice.org-java package sometime) we need you patch (I ported it to newer versions). Unfortunately, sour patch isn't JCAed. Would you sign JCA (see http://www.openoffice.org/contributing/programming.html) so I can get the updated patch into ooo-build and in our packages without any problem license-wise? Regards, Rene
FWIW: I'd really like to get rid of using Java for XSLT processing during the build. This should also allow dropping parser.jar&xt.jar. I hope I can do that as soon as issue 30380 is done. As a preliminary step it would be useful to provide wrapper scripts with a unified interface for processing xslt (e.g in solenv) and to have the makefiles refer to them. The script to use could be selected according to configure choices. Concerning the patches: Did you make sure that they also work both for Sun Java 1.3.x (where there JAXP is not yet part of the basic JRE) and Sun Java 1.4.x (where it is). Is there any difference in generated output when using a different jaxp implementation?
Created attachment 18816 [details] FIX_JARS.tar.gz updated for OOo 1.1.3
pratesi -> rene: I have just attached a FIX_JARS.tar.gz updated for OOo 1.1.3; until now I have not attached the updated versions because the target milestone has been postponed some times. I have downloaded jca.pdf, I will send it ASAP. Marco Pratesi
> I have downloaded jca.pdf, I will send it ASAP. I have just filled, signed and fax'ed the JCA to the number indicated in http://www.openoffice.org/licenses/jca.pdf Is this enough or is it mandatory sending the JCA also via "snail mail" to Eric Renaud in Santa Clara (USA)? Marco Pratesi
Hi Marco, I can confirm that your JCA has been received - thanks. If you find a stamp it would be great if you could send the paper version via snail mail. Thanks, Stefan
In December 2004 I have sent the signed JCA also by "snail mail"; I suppose that it has already been received. Marco Pratesi
If we're going to replace the jar files, we should do it the current way, move external code to their own cvs- modules. We already have http://external.openoffice.org/source/browse/external/xalan/download/ and http://external.openoffice.org/source/browse/external/apache_java we should use similar for updated version of xt and xp. I consider your current approach, just to copy the new jar files over the old ones not as a good idea. Is it possible to update the patches so that we come to a clean solution ?
The location of the jars should not be a that big problem. The problem is that the current jars are proprietary and you can't build with normal xp, xt, gnujaxp or so. That should be fixed, we can move the jars to external in the same cws or so. But that should not be the main part :)
hrmpf. pressed enter too fast. But yes, it should be fixed. And it should be fixed in such a way that *no* module/part has to be disabled (in the original patches it's xmlhelp). OOo should just use "normal" xp, xt and so one and change the modules using the proprietary stuff.
ah, and I can live with 1.1.5 not being fixed. we won't enable the Java stuff there anyway and there's a hack for that for 1.1.x anyway. But it should and *has* to be fixed for 2.0 final. Is there *any* progress on this bug? mh? st? Regards, Rene
If there is no objection I will move target to OOo 2.0.
set target to 2.0
> User mh changed the following: > > What |Old value |New value > ================================================================================ > Target milestone|OOo 2.0.2 |OOo 2.0.3 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These days I was just wondering "when will OOo 2.0.2 be released"? Thank you very much for this release date information :-) Marco Pratesi
> User mh changed the following: > > What |Old value |New value > ================================================================================ > Target milestone|OOo 2.0.3 |OOo 2.0.4 > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These days I was just wondering "when will OOo 2.0.3 be released"? Thank you very much for this release date information :-) Marco Pratesi
It does not make sense to use product target on this issue - DevTools. Ause deleted one of these jar files in ause064 and move them all to external/jars: pavel@linux:/tmp/qqqqq/external/jars> l total 588 drwxr-xr-x 3 pavel users 4096 2006-08-22 11:18 ./ drwxr-xr-x 17 pavel users 4096 2006-08-22 11:18 ../ drwxr-xr-x 2 pavel users 4096 2006-08-22 11:18 CVS/ -rw-r--r-- 1 pavel users 5618 2006-08-14 14:40 jaxp.jar -rw-r--r-- 1 pavel users 136133 2006-08-14 14:40 parser.jar -rw-r--r-- 1 pavel users 92 2006-08-14 14:40 README.jaxp -rw-r--r-- 1 pavel users 92 2006-08-14 14:40 README.xt -rw-r--r-- 1 pavel users 423047 2006-08-14 14:40 xt.jar pavel@linux:/tmp/qqqqq/external/jars> So we have README there. What else should be done to get this issue fixed?
How to fix ths? Remove those all, add proper xalan, xerces, xt instead of you wish. For xt, also see Issue 59985... Which is in fact in use in production on everyone using ooo-build. And it works flawlessly.
Ccing mkretzschmar
paveljanik: and err, why does it make no sense to use a product taget? This non-free things are in the source, used for building and some of them even land in the rpms. And anyway, it's definitely not P4.
.
Thank you so much for always keeping people informed about upcoming new releases through updates of this license issue :-) ********************************************************************* Date: 12/01/2004 10:41:54 (Mon) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 1.1.1         |OOo 1.1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Date: 30/04/2004 15:29:57 (Fri) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 1.1.2         |OOo 1.1.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Date: 17/09/2004 07:44:37 (Fri) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 1.1.3         |OOo 1.1.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Date: 15/10/2004 16:13:13 (Fri) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 1.1.4         |OOo 1.1.5 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Date: 13/06/2005 10:36:27 (Mon) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 1.1.5         |OOo 2.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Date: 24/10/2005 07:22:47 (Mon) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 2.0          |OOo 2.0.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Date: 09/02/2006 13:10:56 (Thu) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 2.0.2         |OOo 2.0.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Date: 19/05/2006 12:54:50 (Fri) User mh changed the following:          What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================      Target milestone|OOo 2.0.3         |OOo 2.0.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* [...] ********************************************************************* Date: 13/11/2006 08:56:25 (Mon) User pjanik changed the following:         What   |Old value         |New value ================================================================================     Target milestone|OOo 2.1          |OOo 2.x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ********************************************************************* Well... then the 2.1 release is approaching... hurray! :-)
removed for 3.0 in cws mh30b
mark as verfied.
This issue is closed automatically and wasn't rechecked in a current version of OOo. This fixed issue should be integrated in OOo since more than half a year. If you think this issue isn't fixed in a current version (OOo 3.1), please reopen it and change the field 'Target Milestone' accordingly. If you want to download a current version of OOo => http://download.openoffice.org/index.html If you want to know more about the handling of fixed/verified issues => http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Handle_fixed_verified_issues