On Nov 25, 2003, at 4:58 PM, Jules Gosnell wrote:
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.
Thank you. This is a good point. I've adjusted the listing of exhibits to quote the language from the original letter.
I don't know if I can capture the essence of that in the response - I assume that the response letter will detail this distinction in a clearer manner, so if ok, I'll just punt here - this letter is our response for the board to use in the official response from the ASF.
- 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.
I don't think so, as we want to keep our response specific to the details of the original letter. We don't want to drag in other things.
I believe the sequence of events surrounding the inconsistencies, done in public and as rapidly as possible, clearly shows that our intent is to be as careful and clean as we can be.
geir
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 *************************************/
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
