On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Curtiss Howard<curtiss.how...@gmail.com> wrote: >> an interesting note from the Apache Harmony project, we got on legal@: >> <snip> >> Harmony, OTOH, says that they have been extremely cautious and have >> not allowed any developer to work on any part which they have >> previously been exposed to. This is largely precautionary beyond >> necessity. >> </snip> >> >> perhaps we should also ensure a policy like that ?! >> > > +1. I can't speak for everyone, but that is definitely how my company > operates. IANAL, but I've been lectured by several and my concern is > that if MyFaces developers take the attitude that "seeing how the RI > does it" isn't a big deal then my role on this project may be in > jeopardy because I won't know if I've been inadvertantly exposed to a > "copy-but-not-really-a-copy-and-paste" of Sun code and it could expose > my company to all sorts of unforeseen legal implications.
+1 > > I know it seems silly to be so paranoid about code that's available > "freely", but the reality is that MyFaces is shipped in commercial > products and it would be unethical to leave those products vulnerable > to legal attack because they may be violating Sun's IP unknowingly. > There is precedent here... remember SCO? unfortunately yes... > > So, in this case I strongly suggest that MyFaces contributors follow > the advice of the legal lowest common denominator (or in this case > perhaps it's the greatest common denominator :D) and not look at RI > code AT ALL. +1 Apache had a (similar) issue in the past. JBoss sent a *letter* to Apache, as they thought some code from JBoss container was looking identically... [1] Sure we aren't about copying code here, but I attach this _resource_ more as an FYI. -Matthias [1] http://markmail.org/message/5v6kuqp7rgmn35fo > > Thanks, > > > Curtiss Howard > -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
