Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 60196 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 08:09:48 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Oct 2003 08:09:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 64492 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2003 08:09:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 64270 invoked by uid 500); 7 Oct 2003 08:09:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact geronimo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 37179 invoked from network); 7 Oct 2003 07:47:51 -0000 Message-ID: <3F826F6D.8070804@experlog.com> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 09:46:53 +0200 From: Pierre-Yves Gibello User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Miroslav Halas Cc: Brian Behlendorf , Jean-Bernard Stefani , gstein@collab.net, Jean-Pierre.Laisne@bull.net, architecture@objectweb.org, geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org, jonas@objectweb.org Subject: Re: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components & Apache/OW collaboration References: <20031006135030.L43932@fez.hyperreal.org> <3F81DB77.2050504@bastafidli.com> In-Reply-To: <3F81DB77.2050504@bastafidli.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Miroslav Halas wrote: >Brian and Jean-Bernard, > >maybe this is a silly question, but somewhere >(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo-proposal.html) I have >read that one of the main purposes behind starting Geronimo project was >absence of ASF (or BSD like) licensed J2EE server. If Objectweb is >willing to change license on some of its components, maybe it would be >possible to change the license of Jonas as well. > >Question: Would that be possible / feasible at all ? > >In so then there would be no need to reimplement the whole J2EE stack >again just to use a different license. > >Not sure what are other reasons behind Geronimo, but if one of them is >to use already available J2EE stack components other than then ones >provided by Objectweb, wouldn't it be better to just improve Jonas to be >truly plug an play with ability to use for example different EJB >container (OpenEJB)? > > I don't believe having multiple open-source J2EE projects is a loss of energy. Nor is it a war. It is closer to sound competition, or "coopetition"; See how we at ObjectWeb already use apache components, like Tomcat; also, on the "political" ground, multiple actors have proven to be stronger, for example to make Sun's position evolve concerning certification. Such a process makes each of us better, it's just like we are multiple participants to a marathon race, a condition to run fast. I am also convinced we - the IT industry - need even more than 2 implementations to make open-source J2EE credible (at least 2 certified ones would be good). Then we'll be the big alternative to commercial app servers. So, welcome Geronimo ! Regards, Pierre-Yves Gibello - ExperLog (and ObjectWeb board)