From geronimo-dev-return-4743-apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Mon Nov 10 21:44:22 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 48770 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2003 21:44:21 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2003 21:44:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 67255 invoked by uid 500); 10 Nov 2003 21:44:02 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-geronimo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 67120 invoked by uid 500); 10 Nov 2003 21:44:01 -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 50376 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2003 21:34:51 -0000 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 16:35:00 -0500 Subject: Re: A Letter from JBoss's lawyers Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Geir Magnusson Jr. To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200311102049.hAAKnNA14754@mail.middleware-company.com> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) 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 On Monday, November 10, 2003, at 04:05 PM, Dion Almaer wrote: > Jim - > > I really like your reasoning below. Some Jboss guys have posted on > http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=22337. > Maybe you would like to place your thoughts there too, as I think they > speak volumes. And by my score, the community is turning this into a farce -- this seems to be backfiring for Dr Fleury and his lawyers... Still - lets get a response together. Maybe simply inviting the discussion here would help. I hate TSS forums... geir > > Cheers, > > Dion > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jagunet.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:55 PM >> To: geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: A Letter from JBoss's lawyers >> >> This is a preliminary evaluation of the issue. It is based on >> the input from a disinterested 3rd party. This does not >> constitute a formal response of any kind, but is rather part >> of the required development discussion regarding this. >> >> This is posted WITHOUT PREJUDICE. >> >> In general, considering that some of the Geronimo developers >> also contributed code to JBoss, it would be neither >> surprising nor improper if there were found to be some >> identical pieces. The requirement should be that authors >> submit only such code for which they have clear title. >> Although "former project members cannot avoid the rights of >> the copyright owner of the collective work that they intend >> to copy or change", that does not preclude an author from >> also providing his or her own code to the ASF for licensing >> under the ASL. As far as is known, there is no code within >> Geronimo that was exclusively licensed to JBoss, or is >> included in Geronimo without the author's permission. >> >> With respect to the specific exhibits: >> >> Exhibit A: Similarities between two subclasses of >> org.apache.lo4j.Level, each of which >> implements a TRACE level. >> >> The classes in question are >> org.apache.geronimo.code.log.XLevel and >> org.jboss.logging.XLevel. Both of them extend org.apache.log4j.Level, >> which imposes (and provides) some of the common structure and >> names. >> The >> classes, themselves, are trivial implementations of a new >> logging level, the structure of which is dictated by Apache >> Log4J. The code seems to be as similar, and as different, as >> one would expect from two authors implementing a Log4J TRACE >> log level based upon existing Log4J code. >> >> Exhibit B: Similarities between two PatternParser subclasses >> in support of the nested diagnostic context pattern. >> >> The similarities come from the fact that both code bases >> implement "nested diagnostic contexts" as described by Neil >> Harrison in "Patterns for Logging Diagnostic Messages", which >> can be found in the book "Pattern Languages of Program Design >> 3", published in 1997 by Addison-Wesley >> (ISBN: >> 0201310112). Apache Log4J implements this class in >> org.apache.log4j.NDC. >> This class describes how it is to be used, including the use >> of a "distinctive stamp." >> >> The two classes in question, >> org.apache.geronimo.code.log.PatternParser >> and org.jboss.logging.layout.PatternParserEx, are both >> trivial extentions of org.apache.log4j.helpers.PatternParser >> in support of this documented pattern. Again, Apache Log4J >> provides and imposes structure. I would expect this >> similarity to morph shortly because both Geronimo and JBoss >> are using Log4J v1.2.8. Log4J v1.3, still in development, >> completely refactors how pattern handling is done within Log4J. >> >> ref: >> http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/api/org/apache/log4j/NDC.html >> >> Exhibit C: InvocationType >> >> The pattern >> >> public static final TYPE NAME = new TYPE(...); >> >> is boilerplate. It is a well-established Java implementation >> pattern found in the JDK and many other code bases. The >> aforementioned Log4J code base has an almost identical set of >> lines, differing only in TYPE, NAME and parameters to the >> TYPE constructor. >> >> The class name, InvocationType, is entirely descriptive of >> what the class represents. The term "Invocation" is also >> found in the term RMI -- Remote Method Invocation -- and the >> class simply represents the type of invocation. The values of >> the first parameter: "REMOTE", "HOME", "LOCAL" >> and "LOCALHOME" are defined by a J2EE Specification, not by >> JBoss. The second parameter is an ordinal from 0 to 3, and >> provides its location within a static array. If "I" were >> writing the code, "I" might have not had that parameter, but >> most programmers probably would. The remaining parameters >> are unique to Geronimo, not found in JBoss, and define the >> properties of the invocation. >> >> ref: >> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator-geronimo/modules/core/ >> src/java/ >> org/a >> pache/geronimo/core/service/InvocationType.java?annotate=HEAD >> >> "Further, although not reproduced as an exhibit, we direct >> your attention to the similarities in the files named >> org.apache.geronimo.common.Invocation (Geronimo) and >> org.jboss.invocation.Invocation (JBoss). Both of these files >> contain what JBoss believes is highly JBoss-specific payloads, >> which are named "AsIs", "Transient," and "Marshalled." >> >> Upon investigation, it is seen that Geronimo's Invocation >> class was entirely rewritten more than two months prior to >> the communication from Testa, Hurwitz and Thibeault. The >> well-established RPC/RMI concepts of transient and marshalled >> data are implemented completely differently in current Geronimo code. >> > > -- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) geirm@optonline.net