> That may have been the approach that JBoss took, but Apache's policy > is to obey the requirements on Apache projects that implement JSRs. > > Craig
I'm not advocating that we disobey the requirements. I'm asking that we work with Sun to clarify what we can and can not do. Sean's latest proposal does sound like a good compromise though. Calling it a "milestone" actually sounds pretty good to me. Stan Silvert JBoss, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] callto://stansilvert > -----Original Message----- > From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 11:05 PM > To: Stan Silvert > Cc: MyFaces Development; Sean Schofield > Subject: Re: Who belongs to the 'apsite' group on Minotaur? > > That may have been the approach that JBoss took, but Apache's policy > is to obey the requirements on Apache projects that implement JSRs. > > Craig > > On 4/14/05, Stan Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, please forgive me if I missed some important stuff from the > beginning of the thread. > > > > My point was simply that Sun should not force us to use a "lesser" name. > Unless I've missed it, I don't see that the license actually says anything > like that anyway. From what I understand, and this is the way it was for > J2EE, we are not allowed to call ourselves a JSF implementation until we > pass TCK. That seems to be the meaning of paragraph 2 of the license. > BTW, I'm not an attorney and I don't play one on the net. > > > > Of course I'm sure everyone wants us to pass TCK, Sun included. This is > why I think we should contact someone with authority on this to make sure > Sun won't get bent out of shape if we just call it MyFaces 1.0.9. Have we > done that? > > > > Calling it beta or release candidate or whatever hurts the project as it > implies that MyFaces is not ready for prime time. > > > > This just seems like common sense to me. > > > > Stan Silvert > > JBoss, Inc. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Craig McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thu 4/14/2005 6:18 PM > > To: Stan Silvert > > Cc: MyFaces Development; Sean Schofield > > Subject: Re: Who belongs to the 'apsite' group on Minotaur? > > > > On 4/14/05, Stan Silvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > <rant> > > > It seems to me that all this will be very confusing for users whether > we > > > call this "Beta" or "non-final". We might as well call it "horse > poop", > > > because nobody will want to use it in a real app. > > > > > > It IS MyFaces 1.0.9. It should only be called "Beta" if it is not > ready > > > for prime time. > > > > > > I know that before the JBoss Application Server passed the TCK we > didn't > > > go around calling our product "Beta". > > > </rant> > > > > And that was the subject of considerable discussions :-). > > > > > > > > Can we get a clarification from Sun as to what the requirements are? > > > I'm sure they will be reasonable about it. > > > > See the spec license at the front of the JSF specification, available > at: > > > > http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=127 > > > > In particular, the second paragraph under "NOTICE: LIMITED LICENSE > GRANTS". > > > > Everyone has always wanted MyFaces to pass the TCK and be certified -- > > it's just time to get with the program. > > > > > > > > Stan Silvert > > > JBoss, Inc. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > callto://stansilvert > > > > Craig McClanahan > > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > > (Was co-spec-lead for JSF 1.0) > > > > > >
