Understood. I'm glad to hear it's been done before!
alex
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Alex,
It's not that simple...We need to get the terms from each entity and
get it reviewed by Apache legal. If there are terms that are not
acceptable for an Apache project, then we cannot exit from incubation.
(Example: any restriction other than that specified in ASL 2.0 is
unacceptable, Any notification requirement from folks who download
Apache ODE to say MSFT is unacceptable as well).
So my suggestion is someone should pick up this up, get all the
details from each company that says people need a license from them
and review it. Once you have all the details, please start a thread on
legal-discuss@ for each specific company/entity. Depending on feedback
from them, we may have to talk to the individual company. Please note
that we have done this process before for SAML, WS-Security etc.
thanks,
dims
On 9/15/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My understanding (and I am not a layer) is that while BPEL 2.0 doesn't
fall under Microsoft's Open Specification Promise, you can (and we
should) obtain a royalty-free license for implementation from IBM, BEA,
SAP and Microsoft that give you similar protection under said license.
alex
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I just ran into this yesterday...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/nqjzh
> http://www.thearchitect.co.uk/weblog/archives/2006/09/000444.html
>
> Not sure what to make of it.
>
> -- dims
>
> On 9/15/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I believe the Dec-22-2005 draft qualification is about right.
>>
>> extensionActivity and extensibleAssign are both placeholders for
>> extensibility element and thus have little semantic of their own.
The
>> BPEL compiler should be able to parser those and store them in the
>> internal runtime object model for later processing (much like any
>> extension element). However, as of today, Ode does not implement
any
>> BPEL extensions so placing anything in those elements would not
effect
>> much. You would need to extend the BPEL runtime to implement the
>> behavior of your specific extensions.
>>
>> What extensions are you considering?
>>
>> alex
>>
>>
>>
>> Tammo van Lessen wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > could someone tell me something about the implementation status of
>> > BPEL 2.0? To which draft version do you refer? The Ode homepage
says
>> > something about the committee draft Dec-22-2005, but it seems to me
>> > that things like extensionActivity and extensibleAssign are not yet
>> > implemented. Is it planned to support them? Is there somwhere a
>> > priority list for such BPEL issues?
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Tammo
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
