Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
The ASF treats the allegations of code copying very seriously, and will take what actions are necessary to ensure that no IP rights are violated, any offending code, if found, is removed, and any other appropriate action is taken.
GREAT!!! That is 99% of what I wanted to hear. I hope others are happy with this as well.
However, you must allow the alleged violations to be vetted - just as you wouldn't take the ASF's word that all was fine w/o explanation, you shouldn't take JBoss claim of violation at face value either.
GOOD! Of course, I like to jump ahead.
Examine
the code - look for yourself. Do you really think that the Geronimo developers would think they could steal JBoss code and get away with it?
I do not know those guys, they are all new developers, they are not old ASF, but new.
Do you think that studly contributors to Geronimo need to steal
such visionary innovations like :
public boolean getStatus() { return status; }
I did not understand why they would mention anything like that, that is not design. It's silly.
But is also silly to say.. and what else you want me to remove?
(or whatever the class field name is...)
Many of the claims by JBoss appear to me to be specious. Deriving a class from log4j? The example given by JBoss is a *log4j example* that both groups used as a basis for their logger. (Hey, Ceki! Can we have trace???) Using 'Interceptor' for the name of a class that's an interceptor? Using IDEA-generated getters/setters for POJO fields?
That is silly, but for all I know it's some legalize. Where are you going to find a jurry to talk about AOP design. Or same design, just a variation on implementation (also stealing IMO)
It's hard to imagine that any of this stuff will stand up to rational scrutiny.
These are old jBoss developers, not old ASF developers.
Now I did not consider, that jBoss would just claim teft via a lawyer, for no reason.
-Stein is the one that railroaded this project on the lists, a chairman. It is easy to trace messages that lead us to this.
He didn't "railroad" anything. Many people support it, and much activity and work has gone into it.
All of it after the chairman started the ball. All kind of steps were done out of order, in a rush.
-Durign his "rule", ASF brand was embarased. What does it mean, ASF developer now?
How?
Ethics are embarasing. It does not appear right. One day, all this code just shows up at ASF doorstep, out of where? That was quick, quick coincidence timing.
At the time, I sent an e-mail, "let it live on sf.net for a while".
If not from jBoss, where did the code come from? I know, it was exaplained... via Magic.
If I use Apache Struts now, does this mean that... maybe this code is stolen? PHBs!
-Using ASF funds for this is a shame and a waste.
What funds?
Lawyers! ? Software engineers should use ethics, high ethics. Why not just resolve it that way? Why not move geronimo to sf.net, while this refactoring happens?
I am not going to itemze what Bill Burke said.
Just park the code for a while, it appears right. There is no down side. In a clean room, even BIOS can be "opened".
But, all of these guys are non ASF people. Or educate me, is there active comitters on Geronimo that are ASF oldtimers.
The point is, now ASF is in the middle of something that was very predictable and easily avoidable.
And since we rushed in, ... lets go the same way out, head proposer out first.
But I am fine with due diligence! As long as people involved are moved arround a bit, and incubator procedure be followed.
.V
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
