On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:37 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Obviously I am not a lawyer, and haven't looked in depth in those
patents. IIRC they are dealing with ORM, ORM tools, KVC (and what
else?) That would affect at least a few dozens if not more of the
*existing* open and commercial products. So while there is an
issue, I don't think a possible WO port will be in any disadvantage
over those other frameworks.
Besides I don't see this as an anti-Apple project. On the contrary,
getting Apple on board would be awesome, even if this only means
granting the patent rights to a project. This has also been done
before by companies like IBM, etc.
Just need to watch for trademark issues - can't have package names
starting with "com.apple"; can't call the product WebObjects.
If we do re-implement it, why not in Ruby and ride on the buzz? We
can call it JetStream. :-) And it is not Java!
Chuck
--
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected])
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [email protected]
