A couple of comments -
- as you list the exhibits, you simply say that JBG claims that our code is 'similar' to theirs, then having shown a common Apache ancestry for most them, you describe the assertion as 'invalid'. This isn't quite true. In fact the code is 'similar' due to the common ancestry. I think we should be absolutely clear that JBGs claim was that Geronimo code was 'derived' from JBoss code with accompanying stripping of attribution and relicensing. Our findings can then be clearly seen to invalidate such claims.
- perhaps we should mention the recent 'Resolution of inconsistencies in CVS' thread, to head off further claims that may arise as a result of our openness regarding this issue.
above excepted - +1
Jules
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
In order to finish with the letter from JBoss, we should vote if the summary in cvs
doc_nopublish/JBoss_20031031.html
is our finding of technical fact, to be submitted to the Incubator PMC and the board.
+1 from me
-- /************************************* * Jules Gosnell * Partner * Core Developers Network (Europe) * http://www.coredevelopers.net *************************************/
