RE: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg Wilkins > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals > > > > Firstly a note to the list moderator: This is a request for CVS access, so > I believe that it is on topic and should not be censored. > > Bill Burke wrote: > > JBoss Group, as caretaker of the JBoss project, has recently decided to > > remove CVS access committers for a few of our committers. We > do not remove > > from CVS without good reason nor without just cause. These are > the reasons > > for the removals: > > I'll take these in reverse order: > > > 3. There is just too much conflict of interest of developers > working on two > > different J2EE projects that are being developed under two > very different > > open-source licenses. > > Surely that is for the developers or their actions to determine? Or is > this taking the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action to it's > logical extreme? > > There are conflicts all the time in open source development - between the > day job and the project - between license types - between duplicate > projects - between competing clients both using your code - between time > developing and time to have a life etc. > The fact remains that you participated in a JBoss fork. This shows a complete lack of commitment to the JBoss project and community. You have lost the trust of the JBoss project admins. > As the author of Jetty, I have helped it be integrated with > JBoss, JOnAS and > avalon among other proprietary projects. I am serving on JSR154 and give > effort to improve all J2EE containers. I have worked with and submitted > bug reports and patches for tomcat. I frequently consult to competative > companies.I believe I have proven that I can deal with such conflicts > in a professional manner. > Participating in a fork of JBoss is not professional. You and other Jetty developers are listed as CVS developers of Elba. > JBoss has many users and JBG has many clients that they have encouraged > to use Jetty/JBoss as a stable and supported platform. JBoss is > currently > the best J2EE platform out there and I only wish to continue supporting > it - and fullfilling the implicit promise made to all JBoss users that > we will make best efforts to support our contributions. > > If you give us back our CVS access - what harm can it be? If we vandalize > the code, or become idle for a long period - then remove our access. > But we only wish to maintain our contributions and support the JBoss > community. The only reasons that I can see for removing us is so you > can make "no jboss developer" marketting claims. > Granting of CVS is a contract of trust between the project admins and yourself. You have broken this trust. You are free to submit patches through Sourceforge, but you have lost your CVS privilege. > > > 2. More importantly, we have learned that they have forked > JBoss. We also > > believe they are preparing to submit it, or some derivation, to the new > > Apache Geronimo project which would violate copyright and LGPL. > Our proof? > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/elba > > I'm not exactly up to speed with the full motivation for Elba, > but it is not > for submission to geronimo - nor would the ASF accept it if it > was offered. > We are contacting ASF to determine what has or has not been submitted. JBoss Group will protect any infringement on copyright or LGPL. > The elba CVS is a totally legal fork of the JBoss code, which after recent > public legal threats is good to know that it can be done if needed. I > do know it was motivated by removing a private trademarc from an open > code base. > Trademark, copyright, and LGPL(or similar license) are all an open-source project has to protect itself from becoming closed source and proprietary. JBoss Group firmly believes in the spirit of LGPL and will protect against any violation. > But whatever, it's got nothing to do with JBoss nor my continuing desire > to support the project. > > > > 1. These individuals have refused to discuss design issues on > our public > > forums. It is crucial to have a public record of design > discussions so that > > others may particpate in future work. > > I have always been willing to discuss issues on jboss-dev. I, Jan, David, > Jeremy, Hiram and others have all posted to this forum recently - although > several such posts were censored. > The forums on www.jboss.org have been the designated place for design discussions since their incepti
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
On Sun, 2003-08-10 at 04:16, Kevin Duffey wrote: > If I send you the money for one of those big > Australian beers we see on the commercials here, will > you reply with a nice long email? ;) You can *have* our Fosters. *bleh* signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
I'll send money too - Original Message - From: "Kevin Duffey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:16 PM Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals > If I send you the money for one of those big > Australian beers we see on the commercials here, will > you reply with a nice long email? ;) > > --- Greg Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Barlow, Dustin wrote: > > > Maybe its time for the CDN folks to be a little > > more forthcoming about their > > > real intentions and explain why they felt they > > needed to plan and implement > > > their flight/fork from the JBoss Group in secret. > > > > Most new companies are conceived and put together in > > private. > > There is nothing about contributing to an open > > source project that > > should prevent you from having private/secret > > commercial plans. Do you > > post all your commercial plans to use JBoss on the > > list? > > > > Anyway, this is not the forum for us to list our > > grievances with JBG and > > thus our individual reasons for leaving and starting > > something new. > > > > Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell you my long > > biased version. > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built > > ASP.NET sites including > > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are > > available now. > > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual > > Studio .NET. > > > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > > ___ > > JBoss-user mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > > --- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > ___ > JBoss-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user > --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
[JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
> These are the reasons for the removals: Two companies, both selling training, support and documentation for a product that is controlled by one of the two companies. Anyone else see a problem here? Naturally, the company controlling the project will try to put their competitor at a disadvantage. Pushing them out of the project seems like an effective strategy. After all, who would you rather hire for support, an actual committer, or a mere submitter of patches? Having things going in this direction, the second company will probably want to secure some independance from their competitor. Forking the project seems to fit in with this strategy. I'm sure that the quality of training, support and documentation will increase due to the competition. I'm somewhat less optimistic about the effects on the software itself. (Consider the history of Unix, and compare it to that of Linux.) If wonder if we would be better off if there was a clear separation between JBoss the project and JBoss the company, as others have previously suggested. That's probably the only setup that would allow for free competition. Unfortunately the only people who could set up such an arrangement are those with the least interest in it. Somewhere, in a parallel universe... -- Eric Jain --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
HI!, I would much like for Bill to do the waltz around these issues and for U to just keep the technology as U are excellent at ... sorry to but in ... but i do think Bill when being consequent... is holding up quit well later v On Thursday, Aug 7, 2003, at 21:37 Europe/Stockholm, Scott M Stark wrote: Its simply. We are not about to work with developers who we now feel have to be watched for every checkin because we don't know what their motives are. There was a decision to leave, fine, no action taken. There was a decision to fork, fine, you are removed as a developer. Any expection to retain developer status is simply absurd, especially given the fact that there was no discussion on any public or private JBoss channel. Simple project management 101. -- Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC Dan Christopherson wrote: Frankly Bill, I don't see what good removing their CVS commit priviledge is going to do: now if they want to maintain anything, they must do so in a fork. It's LGPL'ed, so the only real restriction is that any modifications be publicly available. As far as trust goes, what about the ability of the user community to trust the JBoss project admins? Regardless of the nobility of your motivation in taking this action, if you look at it through the eyes of a user, it simply looks like the JBoss Group, LLC. got pissed off because some people left and started abusing their position as JBoss project admins to mess with them. This doesn't help anybody. Just my observations... -danch --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/ direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
[JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Scott M Stark wrote: ... especially given the fact that there was no discussion on any > public or private JBoss channel... We have been told many times in public and private not to post dissenting views to the jboss lists - so we could hardly discuss our reasons for a fork there. Plus many of our posting were censored anyway. We would love to not have done the elba fork - but while we were considering how to proceed with geronimo, we received several legal threats if we used the jboss trademark. If there was an open license to use the jboss trademark, then there would be no need for an elba fork - simply so we can link jboss code into another project. Eitherway, I wish to continue to contribute to the JBoss project -even if I have to use those contributions via the elba fork to avoid violating the jboss trademark. regards --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
[JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Firstly a note to the list moderator: This is a request for CVS access, so I believe that it is on topic and should not be censored. Bill Burke wrote: JBoss Group, as caretaker of the JBoss project, has recently decided to remove CVS access committers for a few of our committers. We do not remove from CVS without good reason nor without just cause. These are the reasons for the removals: I'll take these in reverse order: > 3. There is just too much conflict of interest of developers working on two > different J2EE projects that are being developed under two very different > open-source licenses. Surely that is for the developers or their actions to determine? Or is this taking the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action to it's logical extreme? There are conflicts all the time in open source development - between the day job and the project - between license types - between duplicate projects - between competing clients both using your code - between time developing and time to have a life etc. As the author of Jetty, I have helped it be integrated with JBoss, JOnAS and avalon among other proprietary projects. I am serving on JSR154 and give effort to improve all J2EE containers. I have worked with and submitted bug reports and patches for tomcat. I frequently consult to competative companies.I believe I have proven that I can deal with such conflicts in a professional manner. JBoss has many users and JBG has many clients that they have encouraged to use Jetty/JBoss as a stable and supported platform. JBoss is currently the best J2EE platform out there and I only wish to continue supporting it - and fullfilling the implicit promise made to all JBoss users that we will make best efforts to support our contributions. If you give us back our CVS access - what harm can it be? If we vandalize the code, or become idle for a long period - then remove our access. But we only wish to maintain our contributions and support the JBoss community. The only reasons that I can see for removing us is so you can make "no jboss developer" marketting claims. 2. More importantly, we have learned that they have forked JBoss. We also believe they are preparing to submit it, or some derivation, to the new Apache Geronimo project which would violate copyright and LGPL. Our proof? http://sourceforge.net/projects/elba I'm not exactly up to speed with the full motivation for Elba, but it is not for submission to geronimo - nor would the ASF accept it if it was offered. The elba CVS is a totally legal fork of the JBoss code, which after recent public legal threats is good to know that it can be done if needed. I do know it was motivated by removing a private trademarc from an open code base. But whatever, it's got nothing to do with JBoss nor my continuing desire to support the project. > 1. These individuals have refused to discuss design issues on our public > forums. It is crucial to have a public record of design discussions so that > others may particpate in future work. I have always been willing to discuss issues on jboss-dev. I, Jan, David, Jeremy, Hiram and others have all posted to this forum recently - although several such posts were censored. Besides, even if we have done something to warrent our removal from current committers, we should not have been removed from the contributors page. regards --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Bill Burke wrote: The fact remains that you participated in a JBoss fork. This shows a complete lack of commitment to the JBoss project and community. You have lost the trust of the JBoss project admins. Frankly Bill, I don't see what good removing their CVS commit priviledge is going to do: now if they want to maintain anything, they must do so in a fork. It's LGPL'ed, so the only real restriction is that any modifications be publicly available. As far as trust goes, what about the ability of the user community to trust the JBoss project admins? Regardless of the nobility of your motivation in taking this action, if you look at it through the eyes of a user, it simply looks like the JBoss Group, LLC. got pissed off because some people left and started abusing their position as JBoss project admins to mess with them. This doesn't help anybody. Just my observations... -danch smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Yet again I can't wait to read the statement that I hope Marc or someone is preparing right away. I spoke to two more people tonight, one from Sun that has learned of the "conflict" going on. I can only imagine how quickly this is going to proliferate through various companies that once again JBoss is having conflicts internally with previous devlopers and developers at large who are all unsure what to make of what is going on. Greg, perhaps you can clear up for me/us, what sort of commit access did you and other Jetty developers have? I thought the only thing that was being done was (shoot, forget his name) was constantly doing integration work with Jetty/Jboss to use the same container for in-container calls from jetty to jboss ejb. I didn't realize you guys were actually working on the jboss code itself. I also thought that through JMX you could somehow interface JEtty with JBoss, so I wasn't aware that this type of integration would require other types of code modifications to Jboss itself. If this is not the case, then I am clearly baffled as to (again) why you and Jetty developers are disconnected from being able to commit. I just can't put together the connection. Even more difficult for me to understand is even IF you have commit access, how is that going to harm JBoss? It's not like you guys are adding code to JBoss that hurts it, nor will it prevent you from grabbing the source via the web tree or anonymous cvs access, so I don't see how preventing you from committing is doing any better than prior. More so, now that so many are hearing about this conflict, it is being misconstrued in all directions and therefore, again, I think it is in the JBoss Group's best interest to quickly remedy this issue with a statement, with details, as to what happened, concerns, etc. Maybe there aren't many of us in the forums/list to garner that much attention to it. But news travels quickly in this industry, and I really don't want to see bad things spread about JBoss. I urge the JBoss Group to quickly submit a statement on the site, in the forums, where ever to resolve this matter before it blows up out of proportion. Maybe I am overboard, I hope so. But like someone else said, things like this have a habit of damaging even an open-source product. With J2EE licensing around the corner, let's nip this in the bud before it gets worse. --- Greg Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Firstly a note to the list moderator: This is a > request for CVS access, so > I believe that it is on topic and should not be > censored. > > Bill Burke wrote: > > JBoss Group, as caretaker of the JBoss project, > has recently decided to > > remove CVS access committers for a few of our > committers. We do not remove > > from CVS without good reason nor without just > cause. These are the reasons > > for the removals: > > I'll take these in reverse order: > > > 3. There is just too much conflict of interest of > developers working on two > > different J2EE projects that are being developed > under two very different > > open-source licenses. > > Surely that is for the developers or their actions > to determine? Or is > this taking the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action > to it's logical extreme? > > There are conflicts all the time in open source > development - between the > day job and the project - between license types - > between duplicate > projects - between competing clients both using your > code - between time > developing and time to have a life etc. > > As the author of Jetty, I have helped it be > integrated with JBoss, JOnAS and > avalon among other proprietary projects. I am > serving on JSR154 and give > effort to improve all J2EE containers. I have > worked with and submitted > bug reports and patches for tomcat. I frequently > consult to competative > companies.I believe I have proven that I can > deal with such conflicts > in a professional manner. > > JBoss has many users and JBG has many clients that > they have encouraged > to use Jetty/JBoss as a stable and supported > platform. JBoss is currently > the best J2EE platform out there and I only wish to > continue supporting > it - and fullfilling the implicit promise made to > all JBoss users that > we will make best efforts to support our > contributions. > > If you give us back our CVS access - what harm can > it be? If we vandalize > the code, or become idle for a long period - then > remove our access. > But we only wish to maintain our contributions and > support the JBoss > community. The only reasons that I can see for > removing us is so you > can make "no jboss developer" marketting claims. > > > > 2. More importantly, we have learned that they > have forked JBoss. We also > > believe they are preparing to submit it, or some > derivation, to the new > > Apache Geronimo project which would violate > copyright and LGPL. Our proof? > > > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/elba > > I'm not exactly up to speed with the full
RE: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
>Maybe this is a good reason for not having any commercial entity have 100% control of the >commit rights of an open source project. I don't know what is the best solution to prevent >forking and duplication of efforts, especially when commercial interests are involved with >open source projects. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever of having a commercial entity control the source of an open source project. There are many cases in which companies release source code to software, but they do not necessarily open a SourceForge project and allow anyone to make changes to the source. Just because the project is open source does not tie it to allowing those outside the company to make changes. The project needs to be developed in a coordinated fashion and part of that management could be to only allow employees to make changes to the source. Marc even talks about the myth that open source projects have a "vast amorphous community" that will work on the project and keep its direction focused in his paper entitled White. The goal of the JBG seems to be utilize the large user community to increase stability & innovation through "human collaboration." This can be accomplished without giving commit access to the masses. In the end, I am in full support of the decision to control the source more tightly by the JBG and do not see the need to dissociate commercial entities from open source projects. That's my 2 cents. Peter --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
RE: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
> Most new companies are conceived and put together in private. > There is nothing about contributing to an open source project that > should prevent you from having private/secret commercial > plans. Do you > post all your commercial plans to use JBoss on the list? In most cases I would agree with you 100%. However, in this case, CDN's business plans involved (or seemed to involve) the potential forking of the JBoss Project. No matter what the reasons are for needing/wanting to do this, my point is that it would have been good NOT to do this part of your quest in secret. Especially now that we've all learned that there is/was the beginnings of a new J2EE Apache project in the works. Now there is Elba as well. I don't think users of JBoss would have had any problem with CDN offering their own flavor of services similar to JDG. I initially looked at having two outside interests competing against one another at the service level, while both were contributing to the same code base, as a win for the end user. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be playing out that way. Remember, it's not who you are, it's how you are perceived that's important. It is certainly possible that my perception of the situation is all out of whack. What I do know is that I don't really care about your personal feelings or dealings with the JBG. What I care about is the health and longevity of the JBoss Project. Forks don't help the cause, they tend to dilute the cause. Maybe this is a good reason for not having any commercial entity have 100% control of the commit rights of an open source project. I don't know what is the best solution to prevent forking and duplication of efforts, especially when commercial interests are involved with open source projects. > > Anyway, this is not the forum for us to list our grievances > with JBG and > thus our individual reasons for leaving and starting something new. I agree. > Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell you my long biased version. I understand that there are two sides to every story which is why I began my posting to this thread with the statement that I'm not choosing sides in this matter (not that anyone would care if I did). I would certainly buy you a beer if given the opportunity because I think you have done a wonderful job in helping to create a great product, not because I would want all the dirt on the JBG. I'm sure there is plenty of dirt on your side of the fense as well. I just hope the situation can be worked out and that it isn't past the point of no return. Good luck, Dustin --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
> > I understand that there are two sides to every story... > There are actually three sides to every story... "His" side, "Her" side, and the truth, which requires nothing short of the wisdom of Solomon to grasp. --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
[JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Barlow, Dustin wrote: Maybe its time for the CDN folks to be a little more forthcoming about their real intentions and explain why they felt they needed to plan and implement their flight/fork from the JBoss Group in secret. Most new companies are conceived and put together in private. There is nothing about contributing to an open source project that should prevent you from having private/secret commercial plans. Do you post all your commercial plans to use JBoss on the list? Anyway, this is not the forum for us to list our grievances with JBG and thus our individual reasons for leaving and starting something new. Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell you my long biased version. cheers --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Its simply. We are not about to work with developers who we now feel have to be watched for every checkin because we don't know what their motives are. There was a decision to leave, fine, no action taken. There was a decision to fork, fine, you are removed as a developer. Any expection to retain developer status is simply absurd, especially given the fact that there was no discussion on any public or private JBoss channel. Simple project management 101. -- Scott Stark Chief Technology Officer JBoss Group, LLC Dan Christopherson wrote: Frankly Bill, I don't see what good removing their CVS commit priviledge is going to do: now if they want to maintain anything, they must do so in a fork. It's LGPL'ed, so the only real restriction is that any modifications be publicly available. As far as trust goes, what about the ability of the user community to trust the JBoss project admins? Regardless of the nobility of your motivation in taking this action, if you look at it through the eyes of a user, it simply looks like the JBoss Group, LLC. got pissed off because some people left and started abusing their position as JBoss project admins to mess with them. This doesn't help anybody. Just my observations... -danch --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
RE: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Jetty will still be shipped with major releases and Jetty integration will still be maintained. The Jetty folks can still submit patches via SourceForge, but they have lost the privilege of committing. CVS access is a privilege, not a right, and is a contract of trust between the project admins and the CVS developer. They have broken this trust for the reasons stated earlier in this email. Bill > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kevin Duffey > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:11 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals > > > Yet again I can't wait to read the statement that I > hope Marc or someone is preparing right away. I spoke > to two more people tonight, one from Sun that has > learned of the "conflict" going on. I can only imagine > how quickly this is going to proliferate through > various companies that once again JBoss is having > conflicts internally with previous devlopers and > developers at large who are all unsure what to make of > what is going on. > > Greg, perhaps you can clear up for me/us, what sort of > commit access did you and other Jetty developers have? > I thought the only thing that was being done was > (shoot, forget his name) was constantly doing > integration work with Jetty/Jboss to use the same > container for in-container calls from jetty to jboss > ejb. I didn't realize you guys were actually working > on the jboss code itself. I also thought that through > JMX you could somehow interface JEtty with JBoss, so I > wasn't aware that this type of integration would > require other types of code modifications to Jboss > itself. If this is not the case, then I am clearly > baffled as to (again) why you and Jetty developers are > disconnected from being able to commit. I just can't > put together the connection. Even more difficult for > me to understand is even IF you have commit access, > how is that going to harm JBoss? It's not like you > guys are adding code to JBoss that hurts it, nor will > it prevent you from grabbing the source via the web > tree or anonymous cvs access, so I don't see how > preventing you from committing is doing any better > than prior. More so, now that so many are hearing > about this conflict, it is being misconstrued in all > directions and therefore, again, I think it is in the > JBoss Group's best interest to quickly remedy this > issue with a statement, with details, as to what > happened, concerns, etc. Maybe there aren't many of us > in the forums/list to garner that much attention to > it. But news travels quickly in this industry, and I > really don't want to see bad things spread about > JBoss. > > I urge the JBoss Group to quickly submit a statement > on the site, in the forums, where ever to resolve this > matter before it blows up out of proportion. Maybe I > am overboard, I hope so. But like someone else said, > things like this have a habit of damaging even an > open-source product. With J2EE licensing around the > corner, let's nip this in the bud before it gets > worse. > > > --- Greg Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Firstly a note to the list moderator: This is a > > request for CVS access, so > > I believe that it is on topic and should not be > > censored. > > > > Bill Burke wrote: > > > JBoss Group, as caretaker of the JBoss project, > > has recently decided to > > > remove CVS access committers for a few of our > > committers. We do not remove > > > from CVS without good reason nor without just > > cause. These are the reasons > > > for the removals: > > > > I'll take these in reverse order: > > > > > 3. There is just too much conflict of interest of > > developers working on two > > > different J2EE projects that are being developed > > under two very different > > > open-source licenses. > > > > Surely that is for the developers or their actions > > to determine? Or is > > this taking the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action > > to it's logical extreme? > > > > There are conflicts all the time in open source > > development - between the > > day job and the project - between license types - > > between duplicate > > projects - between competing clients both using your > > code - between time > > developing and time to have a life etc. > > > > As the author of Jetty, I have helped it be > > integrated with JBoss, JOnAS and > > avalon among other proprietary projects. I am > > serving on JSR154
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
If I send you the money for one of those big Australian beers we see on the commercials here, will you reply with a nice long email? ;) --- Greg Wilkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Barlow, Dustin wrote: > > Maybe its time for the CDN folks to be a little > more forthcoming about their > > real intentions and explain why they felt they > needed to plan and implement > > their flight/fork from the JBoss Group in secret. > > Most new companies are conceived and put together in > private. > There is nothing about contributing to an open > source project that > should prevent you from having private/secret > commercial plans. Do you > post all your commercial plans to use JBoss on the > list? > > Anyway, this is not the forum for us to list our > grievances with JBG and > thus our individual reasons for leaving and starting > something new. > > Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell you my long > biased version. > > cheers > > > > > --- > This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built > ASP.NET sites including > Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are > available now. > Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual > Studio .NET. > http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 > ___ > JBoss-user mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
Re: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
Bill Burke wrote: Jetty will still be shipped with major releases and Jetty integration will still be maintained. The Jetty folks can still submit patches via SourceForge, but they have lost the privilege of committing. CVS access is a privilege, not a right, and is a contract of trust between the project admins and the CVS developer. They have broken this trust for the reasons stated earlier in this email. Is this enough to remove their names from the http://www.jboss.org/index.html?module=html&op=userdisplay&id=team ? Do you refuse to acknowledge their help in the past? I was born in the country (USSR) in which every leader during last 90 years tried to rewrite the history. Is this the way the JBoss Group choose? Vlad --- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now. Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET. http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa0013ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01 ___ JBoss-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-user
