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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Besides, even if we have done something to warrent our removal from current committers, we should not have been removed from the contributors page.
regards
------------------------------------------------------- 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-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
