> I'm assuming there's nothing for them to get their panties in a twist > about, unlike the HiveMind issues, right?
As Jun stated, they (Cisco developers) have a green light from Cisco's legal department to donate whatever they see fit, so no IP issues there. However, this is not the panty twisting issue I was referring to. The real issue is "certain elements" in Jakarta had severe problems with the donation of the entire Pluto code base by IBM. The thought of having to deal with that again is just something that neither I nor any other Jetspeed developers really wants to deal with after the previously mentioned Pluto fiasco, at least not right now. Regards, *================================* | Scott T Weaver | | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | Apache Jetspeed Portal Project | | Apache Pluto Portlet Container | *================================* > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 9:26 PM > To: Jetspeed Developers List > Subject: RE: Service and Component Frameworks (why cornerstone is currentl > y in J2) > > "Weaver, Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 02/12/2003 06:51:16 AM: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > I don't mean to be provocative here, but if Cornerstone is > sufficiently > > > general to warrant comparison with such frameworks as HiveMind, Spring > and > > > PicoContainer (which does appear to be the case, from the concepts > paper > > > and > > > presentation), then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of > > > Jetspeed? > > > > It can indeed stand alone. It is, Jun correct me if I'm wrong, becoming > a > > development standard at Cisco. Personally, I would love to see > Cornerstone > > become a Jakarta project or even a top level ASF project. In fact I > > suggested this in the conference call David and I had with the Cisco > developers. > > > > Cornerstone, "A History": > > > > Cisco donated 100% of the Cornerstone code base in working condition > along > > with a slew of J1 enhancements, a very kewl gesture on their part. David > > > (Sean Taylor) and I were given a great presentation by the Cisco > developers, > > they really had done their due diligence; on Cornerstone in particular. > As > > for legal issues, this was taken care of, at Cisco, through all the > correct > > legal channels as to avoid any IP issues. > > > > > then why would you want to bury / hide it inside of > > > Jetspeed? > > > > We aren't "hiding" Cornerstone from anyone, more like shielding it, at > least > > temporarily, from the same ungodly bullsh*t that plagued Pluto. There > are > > certain elements in Jakarta that see every move by large companies (IBM, > > > Sun, etc.) to donate code/participate in open source as an attempt to > hijack > > control of open source projects or as a way to get a "free ride" from > other > > open source developers. I know this is certainly not the case with > > Cornerstone nor was it the case with Pluto. Jetspeed 2's development > was > > severely stalled by these elements due to the fact that it is heavily > > dependent on Pluto. I do not want to see the same thing happen again if > > those "certain elements" in Jakarta get their panties in a twist over > the > > Cornerstone framework. > > I'm assuming there's nothing for them to get their panties in a twist > about, unlike the HiveMind issues, right? > -- > dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting > Blog: http://blogs.codehaus.org/people/dion/ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
