> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg Wilkins > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals > > > > Firstly a note to the list moderator: This is a request for CVS access, so > I believe that it is on topic and should not be censored. > > Bill Burke wrote: > > JBoss Group, as caretaker of the JBoss project, has recently decided to > > remove CVS access committers for a few of our committers. We > do not remove > > from CVS without good reason nor without just cause. These are > the reasons > > for the removals: > > I'll take these in reverse order: > > > 3. There is just too much conflict of interest of developers > working on two > > different J2EE projects that are being developed under two > very different > > open-source licenses. > > Surely that is for the developers or their actions to determine? Or is > this taking the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action to it's > logical extreme? > > There are conflicts all the time in open source development - between the > day job and the project - between license types - between duplicate > projects - between competing clients both using your code - between time > developing and time to have a life etc. >
The fact remains that you participated in a JBoss fork. This shows a complete lack of commitment to the JBoss project and community. You have lost the trust of the JBoss project admins. > As the author of Jetty, I have helped it be integrated with > JBoss, JOnAS and > avalon among other proprietary projects. I am serving on JSR154 and give > effort to improve all J2EE containers. I have worked with and submitted > bug reports and patches for tomcat. I frequently consult to competative > companies. I believe I have proven that I can deal with such conflicts > in a professional manner. > Participating in a fork of JBoss is not professional. You and other Jetty developers are listed as CVS developers of Elba. > JBoss has many users and JBG has many clients that they have encouraged > to use Jetty/JBoss as a stable and supported platform. JBoss is > currently > the best J2EE platform out there and I only wish to continue supporting > it - and fullfilling the implicit promise made to all JBoss users that > we will make best efforts to support our contributions. > > If you give us back our CVS access - what harm can it be? If we vandalize > the code, or become idle for a long period - then remove our access. > But we only wish to maintain our contributions and support the JBoss > community. The only reasons that I can see for removing us is so you > can make "no jboss developer" marketting claims. > Granting of CVS is a contract of trust between the project admins and yourself. You have broken this trust. You are free to submit patches through Sourceforge, but you have lost your CVS privilege. > > > 2. More importantly, we have learned that they have forked > JBoss. We also > > believe they are preparing to submit it, or some derivation, to the new > > Apache Geronimo project which would violate copyright and LGPL. > Our proof? > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/elba > > I'm not exactly up to speed with the full motivation for Elba, > but it is not > for submission to geronimo - nor would the ASF accept it if it > was offered. > We are contacting ASF to determine what has or has not been submitted. JBoss Group will protect any infringement on copyright or LGPL. > The elba CVS is a totally legal fork of the JBoss code, which after recent > public legal threats is good to know that it can be done if needed. I > do know it was motivated by removing a private trademarc from an open > code base. > Trademark, copyright, and LGPL(or similar license) are all an open-source project has to protect itself from becoming closed source and proprietary. JBoss Group firmly believes in the spirit of LGPL and will protect against any violation. > But whatever, it's got nothing to do with JBoss nor my continuing desire > to support the project. > > > > 1. These individuals have refused to discuss design issues on > our public > > forums. It is crucial to have a public record of design > discussions so that > > others may particpate in future work. > > I have always been willing to discuss issues on jboss-dev. I, Jan, David, > Jeremy, Hiram and others have all posted to this forum recently - although > several such posts were censored. > The forums on www.jboss.org have been the designated place for design discussions since their inception over a year ago. You and your friends know this and yet made a public statement saying you would not participate in these forums. The jboss-dev list is meant only for general announcements, recruiting, and high level, random discussions. > Besides, even if we have done something to warrent our removal > from current > committers, we should not have been removed from the contributors page. > We have not removed any author tags from any file within our CVS. Bill ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 _______________________________________________ JBoss-Development mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
