That could be the explanation, I guess.
Also, I just looked at Rickard's original posting on the ejbboss mailing list, and it
includes this very relevant sentence:
>>We have been told by Sun that this silly situation is being
>>worked upon,and we hope that it can be remedied fairly soon.
Which makes Sun sound a lot more friendly towards open-source EJB servers.
Joe
>>The problem may be in the widely accepted notion that an open source program
>>is freely open to unrestricted derivation of the source code. How does that play
>>with Sun?
>>c,
>>Karen
>> Karen Shaeffer
>> Neuralscape; Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neuralscape.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Shaeffer [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 9:31 AM
To: Joe Gittings
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OpenSource and EJB spec license
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 09:11:10AM +0100, Joe Gittings wrote:
> >From the Notice:
>
> "Sun hereby grants you a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable,
> worldwide, limited license (without the right to sublicense), under Sun's
> intellectual property rights that are essential to practice this
> Specification, to internally practice this Specification solely for the
> purpose of creating a clean room implementation of this Specification that:
> ....."
>
> All the subsequent conditions in this paragraph are aimed at ensuring full
> compliance with the spec and preventing fragmentation of the EJB standard.
>
> I don't see which bit of this prohibits an open source EJB server. Nowhere
> in the notice do they specify any restrictions on how the clean room
> implementation can be redistributed.
>
> Joe
----
This list is cross-posted to two mail lists. To unsubscribe,
follow the instructions below for the list you subscribed to.
For objectweb.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
include in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
For enhydra.org: send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include
in the body of the message "unsubscribe ejb-container-group".
