I'm unclear as to how what you suggest would solve the licensing
issue. Regardless of whether the "work" on the solution or not, the
issue would still remain that they would have to change their
licensing. It's hard to see why membership issues with the OSGi
prevent them from doing so. Clearly, if they change their licensing
today, we could have a solution tomorrow and I'm not sure how them not
being a member of OSGi would prevent any of that from happening.
On Jan 22, 2009, at 7:50 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Hal Hildebrand
<[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, this is a well known problem and although it is a problem, we
haven't
been making as much progress as I'd like to see on this front
within OSGi.
Part of the problem is that the Paremus solution is under the AGPL
license,
which is not an acceptable license for the OSGi. Consequently, we
can't
even look at what they've done. Although there have been a number
of RFP's
that address this issue, there has yet to be any actual solution
defined.
Well, I would claim that a bigger part of the problem is that Paremus
was not allowed to work on the solution even though they wanted to
:-( due to membership requirements and century-old concerns of
business-2-business relationships for joint development, instead of
more modern open development processes. Well... I was hoping that with
the new OSGi Alliance agreement system, this could be addressed
quickly.
Cheers
Niclas
--
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
_______________________________________________
OSGi Developer Mail List
[email protected]
https://mail.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
