Re: [JBoss-user] Fleurys basic problem!
JD Brennan wrote: > >From: David Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >From JavaWorld > >http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2002/jw-0412-opensource.html > > >... in violation of a specification license. ... > > Any idea what that means? Does that refer to reference > code implementation parts of the spec? If open source is > in violation of the license, than it's the license that > should be changed. > > I don't see how certifying another J2EE implementation > would "impact the viability" of the momentum of the J2EE > brand. Seems like adding a new certified J2EE platform > would increase the momentum of the brand. I think it's mostly an issue of Sun not wanting to piss off the people who charge 10,000$/processor for application servers. It's all down to the money. If you want to know what's happening, follow the money. > > There must be something else going on here. Maybe they > just don't like Marc's communication style. ;-) > > JD > ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Fleurys basic problem!
This is just a comment from some unnamed executive, and as we all know executives don't know much in a company the size of Sun. Do you know how many executives Sun has?. I am sure that if you ask another unnamed executive, you would get another opinion. Also the specification gives specifically gives us the right to create a clean room implementation. Sun hereby grants you a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited license (without the right to sublicense), under Sun's intellectual property rights that are essential to practice the Specification, to internally practice the Specification solely for the purpose of creating a clean room implementation of the Specification[...] -dain JD Brennan wrote: > >From: David Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > >From JavaWorld > >http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2002/jw-0412-opensource.html > > >... in violation of a specification license. ... > > Any idea what that means? Does that refer to reference > code implementation parts of the spec? If open source is > in violation of the license, than it's the license that > should be changed. > > I don't see how certifying another J2EE implementation > would "impact the viability" of the momentum of the J2EE > brand. Seems like adding a new certified J2EE platform > would increase the momentum of the brand. > > There must be something else going on here. Maybe they > just don't like Marc's communication style. ;-) > > JD > ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
RE: [JBoss-user] Fleurys basic problem!
Title: RE: [JBoss-user] Fleurys basic problem! >From: David Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >From JavaWorld >http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2002/jw-0412-opensource.html >... in violation of a specification license. ... Any idea what that means? Does that refer to reference code implementation parts of the spec? If open source is in violation of the license, than it's the license that should be changed. I don't see how certifying another J2EE implementation would "impact the viability" of the momentum of the J2EE brand. Seems like adding a new certified J2EE platform would increase the momentum of the brand. There must be something else going on here. Maybe they just don't like Marc's communication style. ;-) JD
[JBoss-user] Fleurys basic problem!
>From JavaWorld http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2002/jw-0412-opensource.html The most vocal proponent of an open source-compatible J2EE is JBoss founder Marc Fleury, who fears that opening up J2EE may happen too late. "We need the whole of J2EE to be compatible [with open source], and we need it to be now," he says. Fleury, who has also founded the JBoss Group consulting company, claims that although his project is essentially J2EE's reference implementation, its adoption is hurting because, due to its open source license, it cannot get J2EE certification. That lack of certification is causing some potential JBoss users to turn to Microsoft, simply because JBoss doesn't have a trusted brand like J2EE. "If you don't have J2EE certification, you don't have a level playing field," he says. "We have a problem fighting .Net because we don't have the brand." 'Sun says it's aware of JBoss's issues and that it is working to resolve Fleury's concerns. "It's going to take awhile to get it right," says one Sun executive familiar with the situation. "[Fleury's] basic problem is that the project that he started was in violation of a specification license." Also according to the Sun executive, JBoss is in a different position from Tomcat "because [Sun] asked Tomcat to do what they're doing." JBoss is also in a different position because Sun is extremely concerned with maintaining compatibility for the J2EE platform, and it views open source as a potential threat to that compatibility. As Karen Tegan, director of Sun's J2EE compatibility and platform services, said in a TheServerside.com interview earlier this year, the "J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts don't impact the viability of that effort." So JBoss is basically in violation with J2EE? I think Sun are just having a their own little legal trip here - not really tied in with reality. Any other thoughts? david ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
