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 Sun, 18 Jun 2006 23:32:37 GMT


Craig L Russell wrote:
> 
> On Jun 17, 2006, at 5:44 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ?
> I meant that there isn't much IP in the spec jars, so it's basically
> wasted time if the spec jars are available under a compatible license.

Agreed, but what if Geronimo already has them?

>>
>>>>
>>>> 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. ;-)
>>
>> I know, but the whole thing is so annoying.  I am confident that Sun
>> will fix this eventually, but man, I wish they'd trust us and do it
>> sooner than later.
> 
> Annoying is not a good reason to waste energy implementing spec jars
> with a miniscule of IP, is it?
> 
> I'm not clear on what you think Sun is going to fix "eventually". The
> CDDL is brand-new, so it's not likely to change much, is it? 

I think the CDDL is an excellent license.  What I'm objecting to has
nothing to do with the CDDL per se, but rather how Sun chooses to run
their open source projects.


> It just
> seems it's an appropriate license for spec jars (and I think I
> understand your point that it's not good enough for reference
> implementation jars).

Again, I think the CDDL is fine :)

geir

> 
> Craig
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I wasn't really joking, but for something like this where we hope the EG
>> gets it right, we wouldn't need to contribute back, really, so no, I'm
>> not really advocating this.
>>
>>> 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!
>>>
> 
> 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