Bill,
 
  Opinions on professionality aside, isn't forking a very expected activity in open 
source development?  If someone can't take Open Source code and make a new (Open 
Source) product with it, then what is the difference between Open Source and (closed) 
Shared Source?[1]
 
  As long as a given fork adheres to the LGPL, what differentiates a "good" fork from 
a "bad" one?  Or are all forks bad? 
 
  FWIW, I don't have an opinion about this particular dispute, but am rather trying to 
learn more about the LGPL, Open Source, and your/JBoss.org's views on them.
 
[1] Assuming, of course, that trademarks, etc. are not violated.
 
  - Matt

        -----Original Message----- 
        From: Bill Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Sent: Thu 8/7/2003 1:11 AM 
        To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
        Subject: [JBoss-dev] RE: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
        
        



        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Greg Wilkins
        > Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 8:37 PM
        > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        > Subject: [JBoss-user] Re: Recent CVS removals
        >
        >
        >
        > Firstly a note to the list moderator: This is a request for CVS access, so
        > I believe that it is on topic and should not be censored.
        >
        > Bill Burke wrote:
        > > JBoss Group, as caretaker of the JBoss project, has recently decided to
        > > remove CVS access committers for a few of our committers.  We
        > do not remove
        > > from CVS without good reason nor without just cause.  These are
        > the reasons
        > > for the removals:
        >
        > I'll take these in reverse order:
        >
        >  > 3. There is just too much conflict of interest of developers
        > working on two
        >  > different J2EE projects that are being developed under two
        > very different
        >  > open-source licenses.
        >
        > Surely that is for the developers or their actions to determine?  Or is
        > this taking the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive action to it's
        > logical extreme?
        >
        > There are conflicts all the time in open source development - between the
        > day job and the project - between license types - between duplicate
        > projects - between competing clients both using your code - between time
        > developing and time to have a life etc.
        >
        
        The fact remains that you participated in a JBoss fork.  This shows a
        complete lack of commitment to the JBoss project and community.  You have
        lost the trust of the JBoss project admins.
        
        > As the author of Jetty, I have helped it be integrated with
        > JBoss, JOnAS and
        > avalon among other proprietary projects.   I am serving on JSR154 and give
        > effort to improve all J2EE containers.   I have worked with and submitted
        > bug reports and patches for tomcat.  I frequently consult to competative
        > companies.    I believe I have proven that I can deal with such conflicts
        > in a professional manner.
        >
        
        Participating in a fork of JBoss is not professional.  You and other Jetty
        developers are listed as CVS developers of Elba.
        
        
        > JBoss has many users and JBG has many clients that they have encouraged
        > to use Jetty/JBoss as a stable and supported platform.   JBoss is
        > currently
        > the best J2EE platform out there and I only wish to continue supporting
        > it - and fullfilling the implicit promise made to all JBoss users that
        > we will make best efforts to support our contributions.
        >
        > If you give us back our CVS access - what harm can it be?  If we vandalize
        > the code, or become idle for a long period - then remove our access.
        > But we only wish to maintain our contributions and support the JBoss
        > community.  The only reasons that I can see for removing us is so you
        > can make "no jboss developer" marketting claims.
        >
        
        Granting of CVS is a contract of trust between the project admins and
        yourself.  You have broken this trust.  You are free to submit patches
        through Sourceforge, but you have lost your CVS privilege.
        
        >
        > > 2. More importantly, we have learned that they have forked
        > JBoss.  We also
        > > believe they are preparing to submit it, or some derivation, to the new
        > > Apache Geronimo project which would violate copyright and LGPL.
        >  Our proof?
        > >
        > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/elba
        >
        > I'm not exactly up to speed with the full motivation for Elba,
        > but it is not
        > for submission to geronimo - nor would the ASF accept it if it
        > was offered.
        >
        
        We are contacting ASF to determine what has or has not been submitted.
        JBoss Group will protect any infringement on copyright or LGPL.
        
        > The elba CVS is a totally legal fork of the JBoss code, which after recent
        > public legal threats is good to know that it can be done if needed.  I
        > do know it was motivated by removing a private trademarc from an open
        > code base.
        >
        
        Trademark, copyright, and LGPL(or similar license) are all an open-source
        project has to protect itself from becoming closed source and proprietary.
        JBoss Group firmly believes in the spirit of LGPL and will protect against
        any violation.
        
        
        > But whatever, it's got nothing to do with JBoss nor my continuing desire
        > to support the project.
        >
        >
        >  > 1. These individuals have refused to discuss design issues on
        > our public
        >  > forums.  It is crucial to have a public record of design
        > discussions so that
        >  > others may particpate in future work.
        >
        > I have always been willing to discuss issues on jboss-dev.  I, Jan, David,
        > Jeremy, Hiram and others have all posted to this forum recently - although
        > several such posts were censored.
        >
        
        The forums on www.jboss.org have been the designated place for design
        discussions since their inception over a year ago.  You and your friends
        know this and yet made a public statement saying you would not participate
        in these forums.  The jboss-dev list is meant only for general
        announcements, recruiting, and high level, random discussions.
        
        > Besides, even if we have done something to warrent our removal
        > from current
        > committers, we should not have been removed from the contributors page.
        >
        
        We have not removed any author tags from any file within our CVS.
        
        Bill
        
        
        
        -------------------------------------------------------
        This SF.Net email sponsored by: Free pre-built ASP.NET sites including
        Data Reports, E-commerce, Portals, and Forums are available now.
        Download today and enter to win an XBOX or Visual Studio .NET.
        http://aspnet.click-url.com/go/psa00100003ave/direct;at.aspnet_072303_01/01
        _______________________________________________
        JBoss-Development mailing list
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]
        https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jboss-development
        

<<winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to