Steven Noels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sad, but true:
http://jcp.org/jsr/results/99-7-1.jsp
/Steven
I don't know how much sadness there is in that vote. Of course it's not a
victory, but reading from the comments of the different voters (at the
bottom), the issues we raised were listened
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
I don't know how much sadness there is in that vote. Of
course it's not a
victory, but reading from the comments of the different voters (at the
bottom), the issues we raised were listened to, and given
some thought.
Well, this is a vote prior to going public draft,
I wrote:
The
comments of IBM and the like clearly indicate to me that the revised
JSPA will be 'nirvana'.
^^^
Uh-oh... 'not be nirvana', of course.
Must go to bed ;-)
/Steven
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL
Still I think it is time for a Jon style headline on the front page.
Perhaps something with shock appeal like JSPA Vote Screws open source
and makes Microsoft look open -- Just my opinion. Send a press release
to CNET this time, they were quite interested.
-Andy
On Wed, 2002-03-13 at 17:42,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steven Noels [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sad, but true:
http://jcp.org/jsr/results/99-7-1.jsp
I demand a recount! :)
OK... this is strange:
On 11-Mar-2002, Caldera voted YES with the following comment:
Caldera agree with a lot of the
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Sam Ruby wrote:
Caldera agree with a lot of the concerns expressed by Apache. We would like to
see more to be done to protect the interests of open source providers.
Did Caldera understand what they voted for? If they agree with Apache why did
they vote yes?
