The term required by Sun J2EE licensing agreements is "J2EE compatible" not
"compliant." For example, JRun 3.1, which passes J2EE CTS and is fully
"compliant," has to be marketed as "J2EE compatible."
Scott Stirling
JRun QA
Macromedia
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:42 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [JBoss-dev] Enhydra vs. JBoss
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of danch
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 1:40 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [JBoss-dev] Enhydra vs. JBoss
> >
> >
> > Another thing that bothered me about the article was the
> apparent lack
> > of cluefulness about what open source _is_: they didn't mention the
> > difference in license terms or the fact that JBoss can be
> used by and
> > contributed to by anyone.
> >
>
> What bothered me also, was they were talking about "Java
> compatibility" from
> Sun. It's "J2EE" compliant, not java compliance.
>
> "That may undermine claims of Java compatibility."
>
> Makes it sound like JBoss might only run on NT or something like that.
>
> Bill
_______________________________________________
Jboss-development mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
