Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Dirk-Willem van Gulik]

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

> http://openenterprisetrends.com/cgi-bin/page_display.cgi?193

> Does anyone know why JBoss isn't being granted the scholarship?  I read
> the Happiness is here today JCP 2.5 announcement

The rules we helped shape make scholarship open for non profits and
academia.

Not for for-profits/commercial entities.

The 'new' rules however _DO_ now allow for commercial entities to release
their code as open source; which (as far as I understand) was out under
the original approach.

So all JBOSS needs to do is pass the TCK; just like any other commercial
vendor. Or alternatively do some sort of split where jboss itselfs becomes
a non profit entity fully decoupled from the commercial company.

Ben Laurie is our man on TCK related Scholarship issues.

Dw





-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Andrew C. Oliver]

What should we call this proposed list?


jcp-public

- Sam Ruby



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Roy T. Fielding]

Sam, I've gotten rather disappointed with your tactics of late.  I 
choose to take part in the ASF and its decision making processes.  I 
choose not to have information that would limit my financial viability 
via making me party to a Non Disclosure Agreement.

I'd like to avoid a situations such as say someone posts some NDA'd 
spec for a VM as part of some JSR you're working on and I then go and 
start working on Mono and Sun takes my house for "disclosing"..  
(possibly without me even reading it)
That isn't possible.  Even if you were to read "secret" information, you
cannot be sued for making use of public information once it has become
public, nor can you be sued for making use of your secret knowledge
to create something that is not derived from the presentation of that
information from Sun, presuming that you can demonstrate it wasn't
derived from the secret (which would be easy for Mono).
What you can be sued for is taking information that is distributed under
NDA and making it public, even if you are not a party in the NDA.  As 
long
as you know that Sun considers it to be a trade secret and has not
published it themselves, you cannot publish that information regardless 
of
how it was obtained.  Signing, or not signing, the NDA is irrelevant.

Even if you never see the secret information, and have no ties to anyone
who has access to it, you can be sued.  The company simply needs a 
reason
to believe that someone under NDA (including its own employees) might
have given you the information.  However, they can only sue you for
damages caused to them by you making that information public prior
to others making it public.  They cannot sue you for what you know,
and they cannot claim damages if you keep it secret.

The purpose of the NDA is to establish a contract between those who
give us the information to those who receive it, such that we all agree
that it is secret and will treat it as such until the originator makes
the information public.
I think an open JCP list where no NDA material is permitted would be 
entirely appropriate.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is more than sufficient for that purpose.  There is 
nothing
about the JCP that is public other than what you see on jcp.org and
what the spec leads offer for public review.

In any case, the notion that you would somehow lose economic viability
from being on the JCP list is just plain backwards.  A consultant with
inside information is far more valuable than one on the outside.  I'll
accept a claim that you simply don't what to partake in a closed 
process,
which is indeed why we created the jcp list (so members who refuse to
participate in the closed process can choose to do so).  However, you
should not go asking those who do participate about the facts that are
readily available to those on the list.  You need to read the public
output instead.

Roy

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Sam Ruby]

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

What should we call this proposed list?
jcp-open?
Done.

- Sam Ruby



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Geir Magnusson Jr .]

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 07:06 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
We've been through this before.  The list is has no Sun employees on 
it.  It has only Apache members.  They make decisions on behalf of 
the ASF.  You can choose to no longer be a member of the ASF.  You 
can choose not to participate.  At the moment, you have chosen the 
former and not the latter.
Sigh.

I have not signed any NDA.  I have only signed the ASF membership 
application.

We can take a list which gets virtually zero traffic and split it in 
two.  We did that once before, and created a list which allows Sun to 
participate.  It gets even less traffic.

How you can prove a negative (i.e., that you had access to such 
information but never actually took advantage of it), is beyond me.

What should we call this proposed list?
jcp-open?

jabberwocky?

soundofsilence?

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-956-2604(w)
Adeptra, Inc.   203-434-2093(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   203-247-1713(m)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Sam Ruby]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
We've been through this before.  The list is has no Sun employees on 
it.  It has only Apache members.  They make decisions on behalf of the 
ASF.  You can choose to no longer be a member of the ASF.  You can 
choose not to participate.  At the moment, you have chosen the former 
and not the latter.
Sigh.

I have not signed any NDA.  I have only signed the ASF membership 
application.

We can take a list which gets virtually zero traffic and split it in 
two.  We did that once before, and created a list which allows Sun to 
participate.  It gets even less traffic.

How you can prove a negative (i.e., that you had access to such 
information but never actually took advantage of it), is beyond me.

What should we call this proposed list?

- Sam Ruby



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Andrew C. Oliver]

We've been through this before.  The list is has no Sun employees on 
it.  It has only Apache members.  They make decisions on behalf of the 
ASF.  You can choose to no longer be a member of the ASF.  You can 
choose not to participate.  At the moment, you have chosen the former 
and not the latter.


Sam, I've gotten rather disappointed with your tactics of late.  I 
choose to take part in the ASF and its decision making processes.  I 
choose not to have information that would limit my financial viability 
via making me party to a Non Disclosure Agreement.

I'd like to avoid a situations such as say someone posts some NDA'd spec 
for a VM as part of some JSR you're working on and I then go and start 
working on Mono and Sun takes my house for "disclosing"..  (possibly 
without me even reading it)

I wanted to raise a legitimate question (thanks to Roy for a USEFUL 
answer) and from you I keep hearing "it puts the lotion in the bucket or 
it gets the hose"...

I think an open JCP list where no NDA material is permitted would be 
entirely appropriate.

-Andy


-Andy


- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Sam Ruby]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Yes, Apache is on the "scholarship" board.

If you want to discuss this further, you might consider joining the 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.
The problem is that I might inadvertantly receive information covered by 
apache's non-disclosure agreements with Sun.  This could limit my 
economic viability in the future should I wish to implement a technology 
which competes with Sun.  Would it be possible to have a list set up for 
those who are either not members or whom do not wish to be bound by such 
agreements to discuss the Apache side of the JCP?
We've been through this before.  The list is has no Sun employees on it. 
 It has only Apache members.  They make decisions on behalf of the ASF. 
 You can choose to no longer be a member of the ASF.  You can choose 
not to participate.  At the moment, you have chosen the former and not 
the latter.

-Andy
- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Andrew C. Oliver]

I've suggested this time and again, making a jcp-discussion list where 
no NDA-covered information would be submitted, but there never is any 
interest.


Okay.

If you are interested now - Sam, could you do the honors?
+1

geir


-Andy

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Thanks.  That clears it up. 

-Andy

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

Does anyone know why JBoss isn't being granted the scholarship?  I 
read the Happiness is here today JCP 2.5 announcement 
(http://java.sun.com/features/2002/10/new_jcp.html) again and it says 
"qualified achedemic, non-profit and opensource members".


I am not sure about the announcement text, but I know that the agreement
was for nonprofit or academic organizations, or for individuals working
on behalf of a nonprofit.  JBOSS is none of the above.

While I realize that this isn't an Apache opensource project, it was 
my understanding that Apache had invested a great deal of effort in 
getting Sun to open up the JCP and enact these reforms.  I would hate 
to thing and be very disappointed if they were not being applied fairly.


We did.  Under the old rules, JBOSS would not be allowed to implement
a compatible implementation as open source.  Under the new rules, they
only need to pass the TCK, and as a commercial organization it is up
to them to pay for it.
Roy

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Geir Magnusson Jr .]

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 05:38 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

Yes, Apache is on the "scholarship" board.

If you want to discuss this further, you might consider joining the 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.


The problem is that I might inadvertantly receive information covered 
by apache's non-disclosure agreements with Sun.  This could limit my 
economic viability in the future should I wish to implement a 
technology which competes with Sun.  Would it be possible to have a 
list set up for those who are either not members or whom do not wish 
to be bound by such agreements to discuss the Apache side of the JCP?

I've suggested this time and again, making a jcp-discussion list where 
no NDA-covered information would be submitted, but there never is any 
interest.

If you are interested now - Sam, could you do the honors?

geir


-Andy

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-956-2604(w)
Adeptra, Inc.   203-434-2093(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   203-247-1713(m)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Roy T. Fielding]

Does anyone know why JBoss isn't being granted the scholarship?  I 
read the Happiness is here today JCP 2.5 announcement 
(http://java.sun.com/features/2002/10/new_jcp.html) again and it says 
"qualified achedemic, non-profit and opensource members".
I am not sure about the announcement text, but I know that the agreement
was for nonprofit or academic organizations, or for individuals working
on behalf of a nonprofit.  JBOSS is none of the above.

While I realize that this isn't an Apache opensource project, it was 
my understanding that Apache had invested a great deal of effort in 
getting Sun to open up the JCP and enact these reforms.  I would hate 
to thing and be very disappointed if they were not being applied 
fairly.
We did.  Under the old rules, JBOSS would not be allowed to implement
a compatible implementation as open source.  Under the new rules, they
only need to pass the TCK, and as a commercial organization it is up
to them to pay for it.
Roy

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Yes, Apache is on the "scholarship" board.

If you want to discuss this further, you might consider joining the 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.


The problem is that I might inadvertantly receive information covered by 
apache's non-disclosure agreements with Sun.  This could limit my 
economic viability in the future should I wish to implement a technology 
which competes with Sun.  Would it be possible to have a list set up for 
those who are either not members or whom do not wish to be bound by such 
agreements to discuss the Apache side of the JCP?

-Andy

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Sam Ruby]

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Who is on the current "scholarship" board?  Any apache folks?  Are you 
able to comment?
Yes, Apache is on the "scholarship" board.

If you want to discuss this further, you might consider joining the 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list.

- Sam Ruby

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sun and the JCP 2.5

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Please read this:

http://openenterprisetrends.com/cgi-bin/page_display.cgi?193

Does anyone know why JBoss isn't being granted the scholarship?  I read 
the Happiness is here today JCP 2.5 announcement 
(http://java.sun.com/features/2002/10/new_jcp.html) again and it says 
"qualified achedemic, non-profit and opensource members".

While I realize that this isn't an Apache opensource project, it was my 
understanding that Apache had invested a great deal of effort in getting 
Sun to open up the JCP and enact these reforms.  I would hate to thing 
and be very disappointed if they were not being applied fairly.

Who is on the current "scholarship" board?  Any apache folks?  Are you 
able to comment?

Thanks,

-Andy



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] SuperXMailer

[Geir Magnusson Jr .]

On Wednesday, April 2, 2003, at 09:32 AM, Tom Copeland wrote:

I hereby appoint myself Chief Architect.  As my first act, I have
completed our High Level Architecture.  Here it is:
 ---
- SuperXMailer - <-> - Other stuff -
 ---
Buffoon! I think you really dropped the ball.  There's an obvious 
refactoring :

 ---
- SuperXMailer - <=> - Other stuff -
 ---
geir

P.S.  Watch out, I'm after your job

--
Geir Magnusson Jr   203-956-2604(w)
Adeptra, Inc.   203-434-2093(m)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   203-247-1713(m)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] SuperXMailer

[Tom Copeland]

I hereby appoint myself Chief Architect.  As my first act, I have
completed our High Level Architecture.  Here it is:

 ---
- SuperXMailer - <-> - Other stuff -
 ---

Rose .mdl files will be posted to [insert expensive workflow product
name] shortly.

Yours,

tom


On Wed, 2003-04-02 at 09:04, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> We really need to a submit a JSR to define an API to process these RFS 
> tickets...
> 
> Humm...I'm thinking of a much better idea for next year ;-)



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] SuperXMailer

[Andrew C. Oliver]

We really need to a submit a JSR to define an API to process these RFS 
tickets...

Humm...I'm thinking of a much better idea for next year ;-)

Steven Noels wrote:

On 2/04/2003 12:35 Danny Angus wrote:

Better yet why don't we hand all our IT over to IBMGS then we don't
ever need to ask for anything or fire anyone because IBMGS will do it
all for us according to our IT policy which they will even kindly
write for us.


Dear sir,

I'm not in the position to answer to your mail, since I'm bound to a set
of NDAs, SLAs and various other TLAs with assorted SOPs.
In case you really want me to look into your enquiry, please file a
request-for-empathy ticket (we even had an external company create a
webapp for this!) on our Global Presence e-X-tranet website, and it will
be passed into oblivion through various layers of indirection, line and
business management, and in any case will not fall onto my desk before
the procedure for yearly renewal of the procedure for
request-for-sympathy enquiry handling is being conducted by some real 
executive management consultant rather than these IBMGS wannabees.

Respectfully yours,






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] SuperXMailer

[Andrew C. Oliver]

Would it help if someone makes this an out-of-the-blue business 
requirement or policy? This consensus-through-discussion stuff is 
really slowing us down. We should not 'stimulate' developers to work 
along SDLC, just fire them if they don't.


The requirements can't be change until the next cycle, even if we 
deliver what the user is sure to hate or what we deliver makes no sense 
what-so-ever...  ;-)

-Andy

You're a sissy, don't you know?






-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] SuperXMailer

[Steven Noels]

On 2/04/2003 12:35 Danny Angus wrote:

Better yet why don't we hand all our IT over to IBMGS then we don't
ever need to ask for anything or fire anyone because IBMGS will do it
all for us according to our IT policy which they will even kindly
write for us.
Dear sir,

I'm not in the position to answer to your mail, since I'm bound to a set
of NDAs, SLAs and various other TLAs with assorted SOPs.
In case you really want me to look into your enquiry, please file a
request-for-empathy ticket (we even had an external company create a
webapp for this!) on our Global Presence e-X-tranet website, and it will
be passed into oblivion through various layers of indirection, line and
business management, and in any case will not fall onto my desk before
the procedure for yearly renewal of the procedure for
request-for-sympathy enquiry handling is being conducted by some real 
executive management consultant rather than these IBMGS wannabees.

Respectfully yours,


--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org
===
Information in this email and any attachments are confidential, and may
not be copied or used by anyone other than the addressee, nor disclosed
to any third party without our permission.  There is no intention to
create any legally binding contract or other commitment through the use
of this email. In case you've read this far, go see a shrink.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [Proposal] SuperXMailer

[Danny Angus]

> We should not 'stimulate' developers to work along 
> SDLC, just fire them if they don't.

Why don't we just outsource the whole thing? then we don't need to really manage the 
project but we can *still* fire them if they don't give us what we want, whether its 
reasonable or not.

Better yet why don't we hand all our IT over to IBMGS then we don't ever need to ask 
for anything or fire anyone because IBMGS will do it all for us according to our IT 
policy which they will even kindly write for us. 

Ah life! :-) 

d.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [Proposal] SuperXMailer

[Steven Noels]

On 1/04/2003 23:21 Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

And we need to work on implementing a CMM process for opensource.   The 
SDLC seems like an excellent way to do that.  If we can get developers 
working along the SDLC, I think we could get a more repeatable 
development process.  Far superior to standard opensource stuff! ;-)
Would it help if someone makes this an out-of-the-blue business 
requirement or policy? This consensus-through-discussion stuff is really 
slowing us down. We should not 'stimulate' developers to work along 
SDLC, just fire them if they don't.

You're a sissy, don't you know?


--
Steven Noelshttp://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog athttp://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.orgstevenn at apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: XDoclet2@Jakarta and LGPL libraries.

[Nicola Ken Barozzi]

Aslak Hellesoy wrote, On 02/04/2003 0.48:
I just got an answer from Mark.

So I guess it should be ok without further ado. Pleas let me know if it
ain't.
It seems just fine.

Cheers,
Aslak

-Original Message-
From: Mark Wutka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 2. april 2003 00:24
To: Aslak Hellesoy
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and LGPL libraries.
Hi Aslak (and James),
 Sorry I have been so slow with this, but I just put out a DTDParser
1.21 that has a dual-license. You can either use the old LGPL license or
an Apache-style license (pretty much cut&paste of the Apache license).
Let me know if you have any questions, concerns or if I forgot something
important. The only difference between 1.20 and 1.21 is the licensing
change.
  Mark


--
Nicola Ken Barozzi   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
   (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
-
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]