Mailing-List: contact users-help@myfaces.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <454A6C8A.4030603@klkurz.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:09:14 -0500
From: Jeff Bischoff <jbischoff@klkurz.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: MyFaces Discussion <users@myfaces.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Ajax4jsf or AjaxAnywhere?
References: <20061102130136.3c656f6c@foxhound> <7147176.post@talk.nabble.com>
In-Reply-To: <7147176.post@talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Mike,

Well ajax4jsf uses the CDDL [1], right?

What part of the license agreement are you refering to? When I skimmed 
over it, everything looked pretty standard. There didn't seem to be any 
clauses that would restrict my use of ajax4jsf in the commercial 
intranet application that I am developing. Did I miss something crucial?

[1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php

Regards,

Jeff Bischoff
Kenneth L Kurz & Associates, Inc.

Mike Shaw wrote:
> I think Ajax4jsf has a more restrictive license agreement then AjaxAnywhere.
> 
> I'm not sure, if we can use it for commercial purpose.
> 
> Thanks
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bjørn T Johansen wrote:
>> Just wondering which one to choose...?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> BTJ
>>
>> -- 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Bjørn T Johansen
>>
>> btj@havleik.no
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Someone wrote:
>> "I understand that if you play a Windows CD backwards you hear strange
>> Satanic messages"
>> To which someone replied:
>> "It's even worse than that; play it forwards and it installs Windows"
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>