This is just a comment from some unnamed executive, and as we all know executives don't know much in a company the size of Sun. Do you know how many executives Sun has?. I am sure that if you ask another unnamed executive, you would get another opinion.
Also the specification gives specifically gives us the right to create a clean room implementation. <quote> Sun hereby grants you a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited license (without the right to sublicense), under Sun's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice the Specification, to internally practice the Specification solely for the purpose of creating a clean room implementation of the Specification[...] </quote> -dain JD Brennan wrote: > >From: David Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >From JavaWorld > >http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2002/jw-0412-opensource.html > > >... in violation of a specification license. ... > > Any idea what that means? Does that refer to reference > code implementation parts of the spec? If open source is > in violation of the license, than it's the license that > should be changed. > > I don't see how certifying another J2EE implementation > would "impact the viability" of the momentum of the J2EE > brand. Seems like adding a new certified J2EE platform > would increase the momentum of the brand. > > There must be something else going on here. Maybe they > just don't like Marc's communication style. ;-) > > JD > _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
