activemq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Strachan" <james.strac...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NMS
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:37:29 GMT
On 6/11/07, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
> Robert Greig wrote:
> > On 11/06/07, Arnaud Simon <asimon@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Even the ActiveMQ guys cannot agree. As a potential Qpid implementation
> >> of NMS would be hosted by their project they should decide whether this
> >> is useful to have one and also take responsibility for potential legal
> >> aspects.
> >
> > OK but this impacts us in the sense that we would be doing the
> > implementation?
> >
> > Surely we should not be putting effort into something where the legal
> > position is not clear? What are we supposed to say to our users? "Use
> > this but we can't decide whether it's violating a licence agreement"?
> >
> > RG
>
> I have not read through all the threads on the topic, but if there is
> legal doubt about it
> , it would make sense to explore all other alternatives first.

The same legal doubt over NMS (i.e. does reading the JMS API taint you
from ever writing other non-Java messaging stuff) also applies to AMQP
itself - it could be tainted too; as at least one contributor to the
AMQP specification has read the JMS specification (myself). There
could well be others too.

So I guess both NMS and AMQP need legal clarification on the tainting
caused by reading the JMS specification.

-- 
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/

Mime
View raw message