On 20/09/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Remember that the specification != javadoc that is available.
Yes, I realise that. Are you claiming that you have never read the JMS specification pdf?
> The issue of re-implementing the APIs is a completely separate topic, > related (I believe) to permitted uses described in the licence you agreed > to when you downloaded the JDK. > I think that the Geronimo JMS API that was developed at Apache we as done just using the javadoc as the reference.
OK, but in the Sun JDK licence it states: "D. Java Technology Restrictions. You may not create, modify, or change the behavior of, or authorize your licensees to create, modify, or change the behavior of, classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are in any way identified as "java", "javax", "sun" or similar convention as specified by Sun in any naming convention designation." I believe this is the issue that also affects people who might want to work on e.g. GNU Classpath.
So I think it would be VERY hard for sun to argue that a C++ api for ActiveMQ in in violation of any copyrights or licenses.
I think they would only have to show that you have at some point read the JMS specification, and using Google I was able to find fairly compelling evidence that you have. For example, in your blog post of 21 June 2006 you state: "In some cases the JMS spec requires messages to be sent synchronously". And in a thread linked from the comments on that blog post you state: "I just reviewed the JMS 1.1 spec and section 4.10 seems like the most pertinent to this discussion." In any event, I am only taking advice from our legal counsel. I have a duty to the shareholders of JPMC and cannot therefore ignore the advice of our legal counsel even if I happened to disagree with it (not that I am really qualified either to back up or refute that advice). I should point out that I find that clause in the JMS specification licence really frustrating! RG
