geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Preston L. Bannister" <>
Subject Re: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
Date Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:07:30 GMT
I think what you wanted to say was:

    When released, Geronimo will be the first J2EE-certified
    */unrestricted/* open source server.

The summary line is sufficiently accurate - as both JBoss and GPL try to 
apply restrictions of various forms.  This I believe is more-or-less the 
essence of the issue, and why the Apache License is preferable.

You can elaborate within the body of the article - preferably at the 
very end to avoid confusing readers up front sometimes subtle issues.  
You might want a short paragraph describing why the Apache License is 
preferable for businesses to GPL, LGPL, or the JBoss license (and 

As it stands in the article 
your summary line *is* inaccurate :).

Chris Dodunski wrote:

>Hi Lajos,
>Perhaps you could elaborate, and write that Geronimo aims to be the first
>certified J2EE server, and the first genuine open source BSD licensed J2EE
>server (I haven't read your article).  JBoss is licensed under the more
>restrictive LGPL license.
>It's unfortunate that JBoss has felt the need to attack Geronimo, but
>understandable.  On the one hand JBoss has benefited hugely from Apache's
>presence, but on the other hand Geronimo looks set to take the puff out of
>JBoss's sails.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lajos [] 
>Sent: Wednesday, 15 December 2004 8:40 a.m.
>Subject: JavaWorld Article and Certification Claims
>Hi y'all -
>I'm engaged in a bit of argument on my article for JavaWorld on 
>Geronimo. I said that Geronimo will be (I should have said wants to be) 
>the first open source J2EE 1.4 certified application server. JBoss has 
>complained to JavaWorld, saying that they are already the first. In 
>fact, I don't consider JBoss open source like Geronimo. JBoss being open 
>source is like Solaris 10 being open source - it is two different 
>models. I think the distinction is not only important, it is vital. I 
>don't like the idea of major corporations being able to coopt the term 
>open source as a marketing ploy. It is dangerous for the open source 
>community and takes us back to the reason why open source got started in 
>the first place.
>While I won't completely retract my statement in my article (I'll change 
>"will be" to "hopes to be"), I'd be interested in seeing if anyone else 
>agrees with my position or even sees the problem I'm pointing out.

Preston L. Bannister <>
pbannister on Yahoo Messenger
Phone: 949.588.0872

View raw message