myfaces-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthias Wessendorf <>
Subject Re: MyFaces 2.0 f:ajax question
Date Thu, 03 Sep 2009 11:01:39 GMT
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Curtiss Howard<> wrote:
>> an interesting note from the Apache Harmony project, we got on legal@:
>> <snip>
>> Harmony, OTOH, says that they have been extremely cautious and have
>> not allowed any developer to work on any part which they have
>> previously been exposed to. This is largely precautionary beyond
>> necessity.
>> </snip>
>> perhaps we should also ensure a policy like that ?!
> +1.  I can't speak for everyone, but that is definitely how my company
> operates.  IANAL, but I've been lectured by several and my concern is
> that if MyFaces developers take the attitude that "seeing how the RI
> does it" isn't a big deal then my role on this project may be in
> jeopardy because I won't know if I've been inadvertantly exposed to a
> "copy-but-not-really-a-copy-and-paste" of Sun code and it could expose
> my company to all sorts of unforeseen legal implications.


> I know it seems silly to be so paranoid about code that's available
> "freely", but the reality is that MyFaces is shipped in commercial
> products and it would be unethical to leave those products vulnerable
> to legal attack because they may be violating Sun's IP unknowingly.
> There is precedent here... remember SCO?

unfortunately yes...

> So, in this case I strongly suggest that MyFaces contributors follow
> the advice of the legal lowest common denominator (or in this case
> perhaps it's the greatest common denominator :D) and not look at RI
> code AT ALL.


Apache had a (similar) issue in the past. JBoss sent a *letter* to Apache,
as they thought some code from JBoss container was looking
identically... [1]
Sure we aren't about copying code here, but I attach this _resource_
more as an FYI.



> Thanks,
> Curtiss Howard

Matthias Wessendorf


View raw message