Re: [mdr-users] jmi.jar

Hi Pete,

Pete Rivett wrote:

>AFAIK jmi.jar+mof.jar (jmi.jar in the rest of the email should be taken as including mof.jar) are merely a compilation of the jmi.zip file included with the JMI specification, and jmi.zip is merely the application of the JMI rules to the MOF metamodel produced by OMG to create a set of Java interfaces: there is no implementation code in jmi.jar.
>It's not clear what's 'closed' about any of this.
>  
>
Well there are two parts - the reflective API included in jmi.jar is not 
derived from MOF metamodel. It is created by the JMI spec. itself.
The rest of what you said is right. To me it is also not clear what's 
closed about this, anyway, it took long time to get our lawyers to agree 
that we can include this at least in the external binaries.

>Is there anything to stop anyone producing their own jmi.jar by applying MDR itself (or the opensource JMI reference Implementation) to the MOF 1.4 metamodel available from OMG and then generating the interfaces and compiling it - in the same way they do for a 'normal' metamodel such as UML? What license restrictions would there be on such a generated and compiled file?
>  
>
It is a question for lawyers, I guess.

>
>As feedback, I think the way the download page http://mdr.netbeans.org/download/daily.html of MDR is organized does you no favors, since it is the license of the binary JMI that is most prominent and people think it applies to MDR as a whole, especially since the page is not clear about which files constitute "JMI interfaces" bound by the binary license. I know of very a reputable company forbidden by their lawyers from even downloading MDR because of this: the lawyers' advice is that by putting all the licenses together as you have done, people are made to accept the binary license even for code intended to be covered by SPL.
>I strongly suggest that on the download page you have a separate link and license display/acceptance for those files covered by binary license.
>  
>
Thanks for the feedback.
Martin