+1. Better to be safe than sorry here in my opinion.
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Curtiss Howard<[email protected]> wrote:
an interesting note from the Apache Harmony project, we got on legal@:
<snip>
Harmony, OTOH, says that they have been extremely cautious and have
not allowed any developer to work on any part which they have
previously been exposed to. This is largely precautionary beyond
necessity.
</snip>
perhaps we should also ensure a policy like that ?!
+1. I can't speak for everyone, but that is definitely how my company
operates. IANAL, but I've been lectured by several and my concern is
that if MyFaces developers take the attitude that "seeing how the RI
does it" isn't a big deal then my role on this project may be in
jeopardy because I won't know if I've been inadvertantly exposed to a
"copy-but-not-really-a-copy-and-paste" of Sun code and it could expose
my company to all sorts of unforeseen legal implications.
+1
I know it seems silly to be so paranoid about code that's available
"freely", but the reality is that MyFaces is shipped in commercial
products and it would be unethical to leave those products vulnerable
to legal attack because they may be violating Sun's IP unknowingly.
There is precedent here... remember SCO?
unfortunately yes...
So, in this case I strongly suggest that MyFaces contributors follow
the advice of the legal lowest common denominator (or in this case
perhaps it's the greatest common denominator :D) and not look at RI
code AT ALL.
+1
Apache had a (similar) issue in the past. JBoss sent a *letter* to Apache,
as they thought some code from JBoss container was looking
identically... [1]
Sure we aren't about copying code here, but I attach this _resource_
more as an FYI.
-Matthias
[1] http://markmail.org/message/5v6kuqp7rgmn35fo
Thanks,
Curtiss Howard
