openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: Improving the Maven story for GlassFish
Date Sat, 17 Jun 2006 12:39:28 GMT
I personally don't care very much, I don't think there will be any legal
 issues - CDDL-ed binaries are fine.

geir


Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Craig,
> 
> IANAL and like Patrick I don't understand all the subtleties of the
> legal issues.  Pragmatically speaking though, I agree that it would be
> beneficial to everyone if we all operated off of a common set of specs. 
> As Patrick pointed out there is always a potential issue when trying to
> replicate logic.
> 
> At the end of the day its about being flexible and open.  I think the
> option to be flexible in the license on Sun's part would be ideal :)
> 
> So far it doesn't sound like we have a conclusion to this thread.
> 
> For my part, I'd like to use Glassfish so as not to create extra work
> and duplicated effort. However, if that comes at the price of
> restrictions on the ASF then I prefer we use the ones in Geronimo and
> trust that the TCKs will flush out the issues if there are any.
> 
> Matt
> 
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi Geir,
>>
>> On Jun 15, 2006, at 8:33 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>>>
>>> Craig L Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. And I believe that the released Persistence class is different
>>>> from the Geronimo implementation (and nothing against the Geronimo
>>>> folks
>>>> but I'd rather use the glassfish implementation and fix bugs in the
>>>> glassfish project than the Geronimo project).
>>>>
>>>
>>> 1) Why?
>>
>> I don't see much value in typing specs into Java code.
>>>
>>> 2) My problem with Glassfish is that you must sign over copyright to
>>> Sun, so they can then relicense your contribution in any way they see
>>> fit without giving symmetrical rights back to you.  Seems like it isn't
>>> a level playing field to me.  I'd rather not participate in that sort of
>>> community development model.
>>
>> I understand. But there's not much IP contributing to a spec jar. I'm
>> not suggesting we contribute to the Reference Implementation. ;-)
>>>
>>> So maybe the solution is just to ask for dispensation from the ASF to
>>> fork the thing and keep a copy here?
>>
>> You say this jokingly but it might be the answer. But I'd still rather
>> try to use the existing open source repository, assuming that they are
>> responsive to fixes and provide patch (nightly) builds. This process
>> might be the one that makes my suggestion a non-starter.
>>
>> Craig
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>
>> Craig Russell
>> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
>> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
>> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>>
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message