danese, 1- On offering to pay. Is it the case today that we can actually certify the EJB container? When I read the JCP announcement it didn't cover the EJB specification but only Servlets/XML. Meaning it didn't apply to JBoss since JBoss implements the EJB specification. There was no other way then than to pay for certification. Are you saying that the new fund covers free certification of the EJB specification implementations? A simple yes/no will do.
2- On free and non-for-profit. I read your example about IBM/Apache. The example breaks down when you go into "IBM sells Websphere so would need to pay for TCK". JBoss Group doesn't sell JBoss, we can't per LPGL. JBoss, the software, is owned by all the developers that gave code (and they have the copyright) and they individually then license their parts under LGPL. JBoss.org aggregates. There is no central legal entity. Just a body of code that is FREE and LGPL. The body of software is non-profit for anyone to use, for for-profit or not (just like apache) 3- That JBoss Group is here should be largely irrelevant. Let's name it "John Doe Consultants" for the sake of this discussion. John Doe Consultants offers services on JBoss like other companies. "John Doe Consultants" happens to be made of the core developers of JBoss. "John Doe Consultants" uses that free base, knows it, sells knowledge, but the software is free. "John Doe Consultants" is a sponsor of the development of JBoss, like SUN and IBM are sponsors of Jakarta. 4- License should define access to the fund. I would argue that the definition of eligibilaty to the fund should not be based on the existence of a legal non-profit entity but instead on the license alone. Currently you require a non-profit "shell" when the license should be enough. LGPL developers can't make a profit of the sales of licenses to the software yet they don't fit your definition. However, a non-profit with closed proprietary software would fit your definition. Open Source is defined by OSI licenses not non-profit legal shells. 5- I am a paranoid and recently Mc Nealy went "online" claiming that he needed to find ways to "arrest the momentum of JBoss". What is this talk you give in the press about us "forking" a proprietary version, you don't remember saying that Danese. I can't imagine your effort is part of that derailing, please reassure me. You weren't really helping before at least don't do damage in the future. marc f > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Scott M Stark > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 9:48 AM > To: 'JBossGroup' > Subject: [jboss-group] Fw: [JBoss-user] jboss reference in > latest javasoft highlight > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dain Sundstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 12:32 AM > Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] jboss reference in latest javasoft highlight > > > > Danese, > > > > It is good to see you respond (I just guessed on the email address). > > > > Yes Marc does represent JBoss, just like Linus represents > Linux, and > > yes > > The JBoss Group is a for-profit company. I think you have > missed the > > point of what I have said. The JBoss Group is not really a > member of > > the free JBoss community that you have defined, as no one > gets paid to > > develop JBoss, and no one pays for JBoss licenses (LGPL). > > > > JBoss works like many other OpenSource projects in the wild (as > > opposed > > to corporate managed project like OpenOffice and Netscape) > in that the > > main developers make money selling advice about the product > with books, > > training, consulting and support. The only difference is the JBoss > > developers are way more organized. > > > > So, back to your example about Apache, JBoss is the equivalent of > > Tomcat > > except there is no 'foundation'. Do you charge Apache > because some of > > the developers sell support contracts and books on the > side? Are you > > suggesting that if the core developers started a JBoss > foundation Sun > > would give the foundation a scholarship? What would this > foundation do? > > The code of JBoss is owned by the individual developers, > and licensed > > to the world under LGPL. > > > > In the end you ask the question, "can you see a way to help the free > > JBoss community without giving the for-profit members of > that community > > a free ride?" I'll ask a counter question. How can you prevent > > for-profit companies from getting a "free ride" off the Tomcat > > certification? IBM could choose to stop selling Websphere and > > redistribute Tomcat, and as we all know IBM makes it's real > money off of > > services. > > > > -dain > > _______________________________________________ > jboss-group mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://secure.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jbos> s-group > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
