geirm 2003/11/29 07:52:23
Modified: docs_nopublish JBoss_20031031.html
Log:
update based on suggestions from the list
Revision Changes Path
1.3 +18 -13 incubator-geronimo/docs_nopublish/JBoss_20031031.html
Index: JBoss_20031031.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/incubator-geronimo/docs_nopublish/JBoss_20031031.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- JBoss_20031031.html 18 Nov 2003 20:47:06 -0000 1.2
+++ JBoss_20031031.html 29 Nov 2003 15:52:22 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
- <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
- http-equiv="content-type">
+ <meta http-equiv="content-type"
+ content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>JBoss 20031031</title>
</head>
<body>
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@
and B - the license clearly states that <br>
</li>
</ol>
-<div style="margin-left: 80px; font: fix"> * 1. Redistributions of
source
+<div style="margin-left: 80px;"> * 1. Redistributions of source
code must retain the above copyright<br>
* notice, this list of conditions and the
following disclaimer.<br>
@@ -85,8 +85,9 @@
<br>
Ceki has traced back the history of the XLevel class, and thus we
claim that the XLevel code originated at the ASF as part of the log4j
-project. Thus, we believe that Exhibit A is invalid due to the code in
-question being copyrighted by the ASF in the first place. <br>
+project. Thus, we believe that Exhibit A is invalid due to the fact
+that the original source of the code in question is copyrighted by the
+ASF. <br>
<br>
<h3>Summary for Exhibit B</h3>
Exhibit B in concerned with similarity between <a
@@ -108,8 +109,9 @@
first clause of the Apache Software License.<br>
</div>
<br>
-We believe that the claims in Exhibit B is invalid due to the code in
-question being based on the same code in the Apache log4j codebase.<br>
+We believe that the claims in Exhibit B are invalid owing to the fact
+that the code in
+question was based on code in the Apache log4j codebase.<br>
<h3>Summary for Exhibit C</h3>
Exhibit C is concerned with the similarity between
org.apache.geronimo.common.InvocationType and
@@ -119,7 +121,8 @@
The initial version of org.jboss.invocation.InvocationType in the JBoss
CVS repository can be found at the following location:<br>
<br>
-<a
href="http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?rev=1.1&view=markup";>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?rev=1.1&view=markup</a><br>
+<a
+
href="http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?rev=1.1&view=markup";>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?rev=1.1&view=markup</a><br>
<br>
This contains a very similar code excerpt to that cited in the letter
from JBoss Group LLC:<br>
@@ -164,7 +167,8 @@
<br>
Dain's last rev is<br>
<br>
-<a
href="http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.3";>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.3</a><br>
+<a
+
href="http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.3";>http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/jboss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/invocation/InvocationType.java?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.3</a><br>
<br>
The latest rev in JBoss is v 1.5, so we need to figure out what
happened between v1.3, which Dain had the right to contribute to the ASF<br>
@@ -236,7 +240,8 @@
However, it used to be, when the code first placed into Geronimo,
slightly different :<br>
<br>
-<a
href="http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator-geronimo/modules/core/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/common/Attic/Invocation.java?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup";>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator-geronimo/modules/core/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/common/Attic/Invocation.java?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup</a><br>
+<a
+
href="http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator-geronimo/modules/core/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/common/Attic/Invocation.java?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup";>http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs/incubator-geronimo/modules/core/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/common/Attic/Invocation.java?rev=1.1&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup</a><br>
<br>
public interface Invocation {<br>
Object getMarshal(Object key);<br>
@@ -338,9 +343,9 @@
dropped. All that remains of the idea is letting the caller
declare the data as transient.<br>
<br>
-Here's the kicker. The JBoss lawyers assert that "the Invocation
-file is central to the architecture of both JBoss and Geronimo".
-We believe that this claim is invalid because if this notion of AsIs,
+While the JBoss lawyers assert that "the Invocation file is central to
+the architecture of both JBoss and Geronimo", we believe that this
+claim is invalid because if this notion of AsIs,
Transient and Marshalled was 'central to the architecture', it couldn't
be dropped to the degree that the Geronimo developers did. IOW,
the notions of AsIs and Marshalled are NOT central to the architecture
