On 6/11/07, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Greig wrote:
> On 11/06/07, Arnaud Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Even the ActiveMQ guys cannot agree. As a potential Qpid implementation
>> of NMS would be hosted by their project they should decide whether this
>> is useful to have one and also take responsibility for potential legal
>> aspects.
>
> OK but this impacts us in the sense that we would be doing the
> implementation?
>
> Surely we should not be putting effort into something where the legal
> position is not clear? What are we supposed to say to our users? "Use
> this but we can't decide whether it's violating a licence agreement"?
>
> RG
I have not read through all the threads on the topic, but if there is
legal doubt about it
, it would make sense to explore all other alternatives first.
The same legal doubt over NMS (i.e. does reading the JMS API taint you
from ever writing other non-Java messaging stuff) also applies to AMQP
itself - it could be tainted too; as at least one contributor to the
AMQP specification has read the JMS specification (myself). There
could well be others too.
So I guess both NMS and AMQP need legal clarification on the tainting
caused by reading the JMS specification.
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
