incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Henri Yandell" <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Blaze
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:59:26 GMT
On 7/19/06, Carl Trieloff <> wrote:
>> Henri said:
>> This worries me - accepting an implementation whose specification does
>> not yet have a defined license or containing standards body. Maybe
>> we've done it before though.
> This is not true - AMQP has a well defined license and it is posted in
> the spec, and you can implement
> the specification freely - without strings.

Bad wording on my part. I mean the license once it is at the standards body.

> On the topic of  - at which standards body it will land at, why is that
> a concern, as the license of
> the specification is well defined no matter where it goes

I was assuming that standard bodies dictate the license to a large
extent, and given that those have caused trouble in the past the idea
of a new project with that still undefined is a worry. The term
"standards body" is a mental flag :)

I asked Cliff as champion about this bit and he said he'd reply here
in a few hours.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message