On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:58, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > For starters: > I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the > rest of the JDK.
I think it is - or at least it used to be? The J2EE trademark is protected as much as the Java trademark is - in some ways less in some ways more. Ask Sun whether you can have an opensource java impl and they will say "no because we haven't revealed it all". The differenceis that J2EE also has significantly more IP tied up in it that would possibly make it a difficult proposition to cleanly rewrite - though this is the same with some parts of core java classes (ie RMI and friends). > In truth J2EE is kind of a scam. It claims to be aiming for > compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big > of a role in it. They want to have lots of room for proprietary > extensions. Its market one thing but actually sell another. Isn't that the best way to advance technology? Leave room for vendors to play and when the vendors have played with a feature long enough, merge the best ideas together and develope a spec. It was a lot worse in past but with auxilliary APIs/JSRs like deployment and management APIs coming out. -- Cheers, Pete ------------------------------------------------------- "I would like to take you seriously but to do so would affront your intelligence" -William F. Buckley, JR ------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
