I think that Pierre has already confirmed the legal aspects. Plus Apple has been ignoring their IP violations for years around KVC etc..
Karl On Jul 6, 2011, at 12:55 AM, Pascal Robert wrote: > > Le 2011-07-05 à 17:06, Hugi Thordarson a écrit : > >> Hi Ramsey :) >> >>> I was there Hugi and I think I missed something (^_^) >> >> : ) >> >> >>> I though the discussion was about forking Wonder, which seemed a little odd >>> to me considering we have github nowadays. Anyone can fork it and if you >>> attract a following, so be it. >> >> Well, in theory that sounds nice, but is it really a good idea to fragment >> an already tiny community? If I create a fork of Project Wonder and it >> becomes *amazingly* popular, I'll have what — 10 users? >> >> >>> If we are discussing a WO fork... I wonder, has anyone ever actually asked >>> Apple if they are willing to open source the WO 5.4.3 release? The Java >>> people made enough noise to get Apple's JDK source released to Oracle for >>> OpenJDK. We aren't as large as they are, but I would argue that we are >>> more important to Apple's operations. Certainly Apple would see a lot of >>> value in having a healthy community of WO devs to pluck. >> >> It's been established that Apple doesn't care — there's a 10 year track >> record to prove it. >> >> >>> Legal issues aside, it would be much easier to simply get Apple's blessing. >>> They have gobs of money. It isn't like they can't afford to throw us a >>> bone. There should at least be a petition to ask them formally if that >>> hasn't already been done. >> >> Again, Apple doesn't care about WO, Apple has never cared about WO and Apple >> will never care about WO. And if you wait for Apple to care about WO you >> will die an unhappy, bitter shell of a person. >> >> I work at a generic java shop and I want to use WO, but I can't because >> Apple's WO license doesn't allow my colleagues to use it on their non-Apple >> hardware. This is silly and Apple probably knows it, but they don't care. >> And really, that's totally understandable. They're Apple. Their business is >> computers and phones, and they have no incentive to care about a handful of >> web developers using some 10 year old technology they inherited from a >> company they bought. >> >> Apple has *never* been there for us and never will be. So what I'd love is a >> WO without Apple. Imagine the things we could accomplish without their >> ancient jar-files weighing us down. >> >> I'd love to participate in a community supported clean room reimplementation >> of the frameworks vital to the future of *Wonder* (which is, as we all know, >> the real WO and the future of the community). There's really only four major >> frameworks that need rewriting; foundation, appserver, eocontrol and >> eoaccess. They're not that big - and some of the work has already been done >> in Wonder. > > But we will need law people to find out if WO still have patents on it and > what kind of legal problems we can have if we decide to redo WO with the same > API calls but with a different implementation. > >> Sounds crazy? Yes. But it's a heck of a lot less crazy than expecting Apple >> to suddenly show up and actually do something. > > I think we made it clear at WOWODC that Apple won't give us anything, and if > they do, it will be in Wonder. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/kgretton%40mac.com > > This email sent to [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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]
