Hi Folks,
Wes, if you refer to my comment, well: I just stated the obvious.
Let me be clear: My comment made no suggestion that anyone should violate any
license agreement. Quite to the contrary, an open discussion should commense
so that each developer is sure to understand the fine grain details of the
licensing which governs this project. As you've noted, Sun's licensing is
not equivalent to the GPL, LGPL, BSD, or even Mozilla.
Personally, I am not a purist but more a rational pragmatist. The Open Source
community is a big tent--and any particular licensing scheme is ultimately
judged by the collective force of the developer's who embrace it.
Your comment seems to suggest we in the open source community should not
engage in open discussion concerning licensing issues. IMHO, it is without
question--open, honest, painfully truthful discussion of ideas and issues is
at the very core of the success of the open source software movement. If you
want to sustain the interest and enthusiasm of your developers and continue
to attract new contributors, then this is an issue you need to be open and
up front about. And whatever the reality is: Lutris is better served by
inviting comment rather than shunning it.
FYI, I have been immersed in the open source community for close to 2 years.
It is quite shocking to get involved in some of the more successful
organizations such as the linux kernel, or gdb, or even svlug, because there
is a raw and untidy dimension to the flow of energy within each of these
organizations--but you learn over time that it just seems to all take care
of itself in the end. And in the end, the best alternatives always seem to
win out. In this light, my comments on this list are ultimately presented
with good will for the long term success of the project. And a free and
unfettered discussion by your developer community on all issues, including
the sensitive ones such as licensing, is the best course of action.
Finally, let me assure you--Nobody needs to encourage Sun Microsystems to
participate in the open source community. They do so, because it is in their
interest. Otherwise, nothing you or anyone else could say would move them.
And I have no doubt they are not concerned with anyone violating their
licensing agreements--they have plenty of lawyers that would swoop down on
any organization that did so. It's a moot issue having no bearing on Sun's
decisions to participate in the open source community. The real issue is
that everyone should be fully advised of the licensing for the project, and
they should either embrace it or go elsewhere. What better way is there to
realize this than inviting an open discussion about it?
c,
Karen
--
----
Karen Shaeffer
Neuralscape; Santa Cruz, Ca. 95060
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neuralscape.com
-------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 08:27:24AM -0700, Wes wrote:
> Hi all -
>
> We should probably not speculate in re: legal issues.
> But I would point out:
>
> - the right to make a clean-room implementation is not
> the right to distribute it
> - adding features does not change or conceal redistribution
> - the license prohibits distribution of sun binaries - ejb jar
> - there are other licenses - the spec, the binary downloads,
> the JDK (for the language) - which probably operate in concert
> - the license is revokable by Sun, so even if you could argue
> your way out of this one, Sun could change its mind.
>
> Personally, I believe Sun has done us all great service and
> does deserve to be recognized and compensated for it. The
> situation is not silly nor Sun's position arrogant. This
> is not the case, e.g., of an overbroad or obvious patent.
> Further, their community source program is in the open-source
> vein, and we need to encourage them that they can continue that
> program and co-exist with other open-source communities. Sun
> will be at the center of many initiatives over the coming years,
> and we should not inhibit Sun's community source project or
> taint other open-source efforts by making a few decision-makers
> at Sun believe the open-source community will disrespect
> licenses.
>
> my .02 - wes
>
>
>
> Karen Shaeffer wrote:
> > 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
---end quoted text---
----
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".
