Sorry I'm coming into this late, so forgive me if this was covered and I
missed it:

What is the status on getting access to the TCK?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Schofield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 5:56 AM
> To: MyFaces Development
> Subject: Re: Who belongs to the 'apsite' group on Minotaur?
> 
> IMO we have reached an acceptable solution.  Here is the text I was
> planning to add to the website:
> 
>             MyFaces 1.0.9(m9) is now available.  The (m9) stands for
> milestone 9.  The license agreement covering JSF and all other JCP
> based
>             specifications require that we use this terminology and
> avoid the word "final."  Once MyFaces passes the TCK we will be able
> to
>             refer to our releases as final.  This is one of the
> reasons why we initially pulled the release announcement from the
> website a
>             few days ago.  But the release is official now and is
> available through your nearest Apache mirror.  Enjoy!
> 
> 
> I think the users will understand that we stand behind the release but
> that it still needs to comply with Sun's license before we can be
> final.  The filenames themsevles will not contain beta or milestone or
> anything to that effect.
> 
> Craig, do you think this is acceptable?
> 
> sean
> 
> 
> On 4/14/05, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 


Reply via email to