geronimo-scm mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject cvs commit: incubator-geronimo/docs_nopublish JBoss_20031031.html
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:55:08 GMT
geirm       2003/11/17 09:55:08

  Added:       docs_nopublish JBoss_20031031.html
  First rev of the summary document addressing the 4 claims from the JBoss
  Group LLC
  Revision  Changes    Path
  1.1                  incubator-geronimo/docs_nopublish/JBoss_20031031.html
  Index: JBoss_20031031.html
  <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
    <title>JBoss 20031031</title>
  <h3>Summary of Investigation</h3>
  This document summarizes the results of the investigation into the
  allegations of similarity between JBoss code and Geronimo
  code.&nbsp;&nbsp; The original allegations are detailed in the <a
  dated October 31, 2003.<br>
  This document attempts to describe and characterize the technical
  issues surrounding the allegations.&nbsp; This is not a formal response
  by the Apache Software Foundation.<br>
  In the letter there are three named exhibits, A, B and C, and a fourth
  similarity that for the purposes of this discussion we will refer to as
  Assertion D.<br>
  Specifically, the exhibits :<br>
    <li>Exhibit A :&nbsp; The source file
  org.apache.geronimo.core.log.XLevel is similar to
    <li>Exhibit B : The source file
  org.apache.geronimo.core.log.PatternParser is similar to
    <li>Exhibit C : The source file
  org.apache.geronimo.common.InvocationType is similar to
    <li>Assertion D : The source files org.jboss.invocation.Invocation
  and org.apache.geronimo.common.Invocation are simliar.&nbsp; Further,
  the architectural concepts of "AsIs", "Transient" and "Marshalled" are
  present because of copying of the JBoss code,&nbsp; and that these
  concepts are central to the architecture of both JBoss and Geronimo.\</li>
    <li>The source code for Apache Geronimo is accessible via CVS at <a
  and all Geronimo code references are relative to this root.</li>
    <li>The source code for JBoss is accessible via CVS at <a
  and all JBoss code references are relative to this root.</li>
    <li>The <a href="">Apache
  Software License</a> is a business-friendly license that allows others
  to take our software and use it as they please, as long as they respect
  the terms of our license.&nbsp; This will be important for Exhibits A
  and B - the license clearly states that <br>
  <div style="margin-left: 80px;">&nbsp;* 1. Redistributions of source
  code must retain the above copyright<br>
  &nbsp;*&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; notice, this list of conditions and the
  following disclaimer.<br>
  &nbsp; <br>
  <h3>Summary for Exhibit A</h3>
  Exhibit A is concerned with similarity between <a
  and <a
  This issue has been <a href="">exhaustively
  researched</a> ( by the founder of
  the log4j project, Ceki G&uuml;lc&uuml;.&nbsp; His summary :<br>
  <div style="margin-left: 40px;">"In summary, the source code
  incriminated by Exhibit A existed at the Apache Software Foundation at
  least 6 months before it made its first appearance at JBoss. Thus, in
  relation to this exhibit, I cannot see how JBoss LLC has any valid
  claims against the ASF for this particular code. In fact, it appears
  that by neglecting to attribute the code and follow the Apache License
  for this example, the violation of copyright would be the exact
  reverse. "<br>
  Ceiki has traced back the history of the XLevel class, and thus we
  claim that the XLevel code originated at the ASF as part of the log4j
  project. Thus, we believe that Exhibit A is invalid due to the code in
  question being copyrighted by the ASF in the first place.&nbsp; <br>
  <h3>Summary for Exhibit B</h3>
  Exhibit B in concerned with similarity between <a
  and&nbsp; <a
  According to the same research for Exhibit A by Ceki G&uuml;lc&uuml; :<br>
  <div style="margin-left: 40px;">"The PatternParserEx class, cited in
  Mr. David J. Byer's letter to the ASF, very closely follows the pattern
  established MyPatternParser and AppServerPatternParser classes. The
  earliest record of this class in Jboss source code repository dates to
  September 15th, 2002. Unless JBoss LLC claims thatPatternParserEx
  predates MyPatternParser or AppServerPatternParser classes found in
  log4j, it looks like the JBoss LLC removed the existing Apache
  copyright when it based PatternParserExclass on modified versions of
  PatternParserEx and AppServerPatternParser. This is prohibited by the
  first clause of the Apache Software License.<br>
  We believe that the claims in Exhibit B is invalud due to the code in
  question being based on the same code in the Apache log4j codebase.<br>
  <h3>Summary for Exhibit C</h3>
  Exhibit C is concerned with the similarity between
  org.apache.geronimo.common.InvocationType and
  org.jboss.invocation.InvocationType.&nbsp; The following summary is
  based on discussion from the geronimo-dev list.<br>
  The initial version of org.jboss.invocation.InvocationType in the JBoss
  CVS repository can be found at the following location:<br>
  This contains a very similar code excerpt to that cited in the letter
  from JBoss Group LLC:<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType REMOTE =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType LOCAL =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType HOME =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType LOCALHOME =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  This code was contributed to the JBoss project by dsundstrom (Dain
  Sundstrom) on 7/14/2002. As the original copyright holder, Dain would
  be free to contribute this code to Geronimo as well.<br>
  The JBoss version of this code was modified exclusively by dsundstrom
  up to and including the 1.3 revision (dated 10/30/2002) in the JBoss
  CVS, where the code had evolved to the following:<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType REMOTE =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  InvocationType("REMOTE", false, false);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType LOCAL =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  InvocationType("LOCAL", false, true);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType HOME =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  InvocationType("HOME", true, false);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public static final InvocationType LOCALHOME =<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; new
  InvocationType("LOCALHOME", true, true);<br>
  Dain had the right to contribute to Geronimo the code up to (but not
  including) the changes made by Scott or anyone else<br>
  Dain's last rev is<br>
  The latest rev in JBoss is v 1.5, so we need to figure out what
  happened between v1.3, which Dain had the right to contribute to the ASF<br>
  JBoss 1.3 :<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; committed by Dain, for which he has the rights to
  contribute and re-license here in Geronimo under the ASL<br>
  JBoss v1.3 -&gt; v1.4 :<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; a) Switched from using a static int to a final
  static int as the max value for the InvocationType array.&nbsp; We see
  the same in the Geronimo code. This is common, accepted practice for
  creating constants in Java, and would be suggested by any code
  inspector (like Idea or Eclipse).&nbsp; In my opinion, Dain should have
  his hand slapped for not doing it this way in the first place.<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; b) Switched to a statically allocated array []
  rather than an ArrayList for holding the invocationType objects.&nbsp;
  This change is in the Geronimo code.<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; c) Changed the signature of the InvocationType from
  the Dain way (new InvocationType("LOCAL", false, true)) that is in
  Geronimo now, to a different way ( new InvocationType("HOME",
  2)).&nbsp; Clearly the Geronimo code didn't copy this change.<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; d) Removed&nbsp; two booleans isLocal and isHome,
  present in the Dain-contributed 1.3.&nbsp; These variables persist in
  the Geronimo version as local and home.&nbsp; This change was not
  adopted by Dain for Geronimo.<br>
  Jboss v1.4 -&gt; v1.5 :<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; Added a new invocation type 'SERVICE_ENDPOINT', which is
  not present in the Geronimo code.&nbsp; I conclude that any changes
  between v1.4 and 1.5 of the JBoss code were not co-opted into the
  geronimo codebase.<br>
  Here's my conclusion.&nbsp; I would appreciate commentary :<br>
  Dain contributed the same code to Geronimo that he contributed to JBoss.<br>
  The only difference between his JBoss contributions, for which he has
  complete rights to contribute and relicense elsehwere, is that he
  changed the Geronimo implementation to use an array of rather than an
  ArrayList to hold the InvocationType objects, and a static final int
  'constant' to keep the size of that array rather than a static int
  <h3>Summary of Assertion D</h3>
  Assertion D is concerned with the similarity between
  org.apache.geronimo.common.Invocation and
  org.jboss.invocation.Invocation.&nbsp; Further, the claim is that both
  files contain "AsIs", "Transient" and "Marhsalled", which are believed
  to be JBoss-specific payloads, and thus could only be there via
  copying. Further, the Invocation file is central to the JBoss
  architecture, and thus copying could have great impact throughout
  The file org.apache.geronimo.core.service.Invocation currently is a
  riff on java.util.Map, namely :<br>
  public interface Invocation {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Object get(InvocationKey key);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; void put(InvocationKey key, Object value);<br>
  Clearly this can't be what the lawyers are talking about.&nbsp;
  However, it used to be, when the code first placed into Geronimo,
  slightly different :<br>
  public interface Invocation {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Object getMarshal(Object key);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; void putMarshal(Object key, Object value);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Object getAsIs(Object key);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; void putAsIs(Object key, Object value);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Object getTransient(Object key);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; void putTransient(Object key, Object value);<br>
  This is still an interface, but dealing with the three notions of
  'Marshal', 'AsIs', and 'Transient'.&nbsp; This is what the JBoss Group
  LLCs lawyers are referring to.&nbsp; Now, looking at the Invocation
  class in JBoss, and looking at the version in their CVS at the time of
  the import into Geronimo,, there is an implementation of the
  same notion in a method - following snipped out for brevity :<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * Advanced store<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * Here you can pass a TYPE that indicates where to
  put the value.<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * TRANSIENT: the value is put in a map that WON'T be
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * AS_IS: no need to marshall the value when passed
  (use for all JDK<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; *&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; java types)<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; * PAYLOAD: we need to marshall the value as its type
  is application specific<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; */<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; public void setValue(Object key, Object value, PayloadKey
  &nbsp;&nbsp; {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; if(type == PayloadKey.TRANSIENT)<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; else if(type == PayloadKey.AS_IS)<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; else if(type == PayloadKey.PAYLOAD)<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; else<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; throw new
  IllegalArgumentException("Unknown PayloadKey: " + type);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp; }<br>
  It appears that this is a storage class for moving bits through their
  invocation/interceptor mechanism, and that they are doing what appears
  to be an early optimization by having the caller define via the keytype
  if a) the data doesn't need to be marshalled as it's staying put on
  this side of the wire (TRANSIENT), b) the data doesn't need to have any
  special care and feeding as it's a JDK data type (ASIS), or c) it will
  need to be marshalled (PAYLOAD).<br>
  So it's clear to me that the code originally in Geronimo (and now in
  the Attic) implemented this *idea* in their interface, moving it
  outside of the Invocation implementation and into the interface.&nbsp;
  This is an implementation of the idea.<br>
  Now, I guess we have to come back to the code as it exists today in the
  o.a.g.core.service package.&nbsp; Repeating for, it is
  now much simpler - the Geronimo developers got rid of the 'Asis',
  'Marshal' and 'Transient' 'modifiers' on the methods and reduced it to<br>
  public interface Invocation {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Object get(InvocationKey key);<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; void put(InvocationKey key, Object value);<br>
  public interface InvocationKey {<br>
  &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; boolean isTransient();<br>
  so now the idea of declaring something as not going over the wire (my
  assumption) is taken care of in the key itself into this map, letting
  (I assume again) the endpoint doing the serialzation decide if the
  element in the map needs to go based on the isTransient() method, and
  how marshalled based on the class. <br>
  Summary so far : the original code had an expression of the idea of
  'Marshall', 'AsIs' and 'Transient'.&nbsp; Most of the idea was
  dropped.&nbsp; All that remains of the idea is letting the caller
  declare the data as transient.<br>
  Here's the kicker.&nbsp; The JBoss lawyers assert that "the Invocation
  file is central to the architecture of both JBoss and Geronimo".&nbsp;
  We believe that this claim is invalid because if this notion of AsIs,
  Transient and Marshalled was 'central to the architecture', it couldn't
  be dropped to the degree that the Geronimo developers did.&nbsp; IOW,
  the notions of AsIs and Marshalled are NOT central to the architecture
  at all - they don't exist anymore.&nbsp; So to summarize :<br>
  1) The original code in Geronimo (w/ getAsIs()) is not a copy of JBoss
  code&nbsp; - it's a different implementation of an idea in the JBoss
  2) The current code has thrown out all but the idea that the user of an
  Invocation implementation declare that data placed into that
  implementation is transient.<br>

View raw message