Re: [ANN] Apache's Position on the JSPA (was: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml])

[Kevin A. Burton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Jon Scott Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> on 1/30/02 4:15 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it
> > doesn't give me a clear idea about "what we want".  Can you give me a
> > good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect.  It just
> > seems like we should be asking for something and being specific.
> > 
> > -Andy
> 
> Here is "what we want":
> 
> 
> 
> Kudo's to Jason Hunter for writing it.


I read it last night from CVS.

I just wanted to say that I am really proud and excited to see Apache stand up
for something!

Lets keep up the good work!  :)

Kevin

- -- 
Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
 Location - San Francisco, CA, Cell - 415.595.9965
Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED],  Web - http://relativity.yi.org/

These are dangerous days.
To say what you feel is to dig your own grave.
Remember what I told you.
If they hated me, they will hate you.
- Sinead O'Connor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt

iD8DBQE8YEJgAwM6xb2dfE0RAobWAJ0WAcvgbh8ly/cSRL07n8a2ltro4gCbBSQV
yseYSQ3XUeztafUaIG+qZwk=
=/8//
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

That's awesome, I'll check that out!

On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 13:11, Scott Sanders wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:58 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 19:54, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> > > on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" 
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it 
> > > > doesn't give me a clear idea about "what we want".  Can 
> > you give me 
> > > > a good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that 
> > effect.  It 
> > > > just seems like we should be asking for something and being 
> > > > specific.
> > > > 
> > > > -Andy
> > > 
> > > That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows 
> > exactly what 
> > > we want.
> > > 
> > > There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes 
> > around here 
> > > that unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, 
> > discussions about 
> > > opening some of that up (including posting what we want to 
> > the public 
> > > site) are going on now.
> > > 
> > 
> > For starters:
> > I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same 
> > license as the rest of the JDK.
> > 
> > Personally I'm having a hard time getting particularly in 
> > uproar as I think the central core of J2EE - Enterprise Java 
> > Beans is such a poor standard, that I'm not particularly 
> > upset that its not *free*.  I should not say these things 
> > publicly, as I still have to work in these things, but in 
> > truth EJB and particularly Entity beans is a less that 
> > elegant kludge.  
> > 
> > In truth J2EE is kind of a scam.  It claims to be aiming for 
> > compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors 
> > play too big of a role in it.  They want to have lots of room 
> > for proprietary extensions.  Its market one thing but 
> > actually sell another.
> > 
> > I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard 
> > that achieves the goals of EJBs without being limited by its 
> > faulty design and backward compatibility with its original 
> > faultier design.  Just my humble opinion on that.
> 
> Check out AJB in Avalon.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-apps-dev&m=101158982807771&w=2
> 
> Uses AltRMI from the Commons to achieve RMI with extending Remote or
> throwing remote exception.  Now you can publish any class/interface
> remotely...
> 
> Cheers,
> Scott
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


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

RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Scott Sanders]

> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 19:54, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> > on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it 
> > > doesn't give me a clear idea about "what we want".  Can 
> you give me 
> > > a good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that 
> effect.  It 
> > > just seems like we should be asking for something and being 
> > > specific.
> > > 
> > > -Andy
> > 
> > That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows 
> exactly what 
> > we want.
> > 
> > There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes 
> around here 
> > that unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, 
> discussions about 
> > opening some of that up (including posting what we want to 
> the public 
> > site) are going on now.
> > 
> 
> For starters:
> I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same 
> license as the rest of the JDK.
> 
> Personally I'm having a hard time getting particularly in 
> uproar as I think the central core of J2EE - Enterprise Java 
> Beans is such a poor standard, that I'm not particularly 
> upset that its not *free*.  I should not say these things 
> publicly, as I still have to work in these things, but in 
> truth EJB and particularly Entity beans is a less that 
> elegant kludge.  
> 
> In truth J2EE is kind of a scam.  It claims to be aiming for 
> compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors 
> play too big of a role in it.  They want to have lots of room 
> for proprietary extensions.  Its market one thing but 
> actually sell another.
> 
> I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard 
> that achieves the goals of EJBs without being limited by its 
> faulty design and backward compatibility with its original 
> faultier design.  Just my humble opinion on that.

Check out AJB in Avalon.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-apps-dev&m=101158982807771&w=2

Uses AltRMI from the Commons to achieve RMI with extending Remote or
throwing remote exception.  Now you can publish any class/interface
remotely...

Cheers,
Scott


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

Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 21:46, Peter Donald wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:58, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > For starters:
> > I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the
> > rest of the JDK.
> 
> I think it is - or at least it used to be? The J2EE trademark is protected as 
> much as the Java trademark is - in some ways less in some ways more.  Ask Sun 
> whether you can have an opensource java impl and they will say "no because we 
> haven't revealed it all". The differenceis that J2EE also has significantly 
> more IP tied up in it that would possibly make it a difficult proposition to 
> cleanly rewrite - though this is the same with some parts of core java 
> classes (ie RMI and friends).
> 

>From my understanding you cannot distribute the j2ee jars and
technologies.  There also seems to be a strange clause that I admittedly
do not understand regarding development of technologies based on. 
Compatibility tests are one thing.  I could give a flip about branding
something as J2EE as it mostly serves to confuse business people.  (Do
you know how to do EJB?  What about J2EE?)  

> > In truth J2EE is kind of a scam.  It claims to be aiming for
> > compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big
> > of a role in it.  They want to have lots of room for proprietary
> > extensions.  Its market one thing but actually sell another.
> 
> Isn't that the best way to advance technology? Leave room for vendors to play 
> and when the vendors have played with a feature long enough, merge the best 
> ideas together and develope a spec. It was a lot worse in past but with 
> auxilliary APIs/JSRs like deployment and management APIs coming out.
> 

Perhaps, the issue is how far.  Up to now at least, IMHO, they've leaned
more toward "please embrace and extend" and less toward standards based
technologies.  

-Andy

> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> Pete
> 
> ---
> "I would like to take you seriously but to do so would 
> affront your intelligence" -William F. Buckley, JR
> ---
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Peter Donald]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:58, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> For starters:
> I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the
> rest of the JDK.

I think it is - or at least it used to be? The J2EE trademark is protected as 
much as the Java trademark is - in some ways less in some ways more.  Ask Sun 
whether you can have an opensource java impl and they will say "no because we 
haven't revealed it all". The differenceis that J2EE also has significantly 
more IP tied up in it that would possibly make it a difficult proposition to 
cleanly rewrite - though this is the same with some parts of core java 
classes (ie RMI and friends).

> In truth J2EE is kind of a scam.  It claims to be aiming for
> compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big
> of a role in it.  They want to have lots of room for proprietary
> extensions.  Its market one thing but actually sell another.

Isn't that the best way to advance technology? Leave room for vendors to play 
and when the vendors have played with a feature long enough, merge the best 
ideas together and develope a spec. It was a lot worse in past but with 
auxilliary APIs/JSRs like deployment and management APIs coming out.

-- 
Cheers,

Pete

---
"I would like to take you seriously but to do so would 
affront your intelligence" -William F. Buckley, JR
---


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 21:31, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> At 08:58 PM 1/30/2002 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard that achieves
> >the goals of EJBs without being limited by its faulty design and
> >backward compatibility with its original faultier design.  Just my
> >humble opinion on that.
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more. Any ideas on how to make such an Open Source standard 
> a "standard" in a sense that it would be accepted by the IT community as 
> way to do things? Maybe some kind of a Standard Committee under apache and 
> a working reference implementation based on one of the existing projects?
> 

The short answer: "If you build it they will come".  I can help on this
later if someone(s) with an EJB situation (which I don't presently have)
can start the ball rolling.  I'm presently at capacity, but I'd love to
help out with the specs.

-Andy

> 
> ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
> - Andrei (a.k.a. Andrus) Adamchik
> http://objectstyle.org
> list email: andrus-jk at objectstyle dot org
> personal email: andrus at objectstyle dot org
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Andrus Adamchik]

At 08:58 PM 1/30/2002 -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard that achieves
>the goals of EJBs without being limited by its faulty design and
>backward compatibility with its original faultier design.  Just my
>humble opinion on that.


Couldn't agree more. Any ideas on how to make such an Open Source standard 
a "standard" in a sense that it would be accepted by the IT community as 
way to do things? Maybe some kind of a Standard Committee under apache and 
a working reference implementation based on one of the existing projects?


~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
- Andrei (a.k.a. Andrus) Adamchik
http://objectstyle.org
list email: andrus-jk at objectstyle dot org
personal email: andrus at objectstyle dot org


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 19:54, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it
> > doesn't give me a clear idea about "what we want".  Can you give me a
> > good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect.  It just
> > seems like we should be asking for something and being specific.
> > 
> > -Andy
> 
> That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows exactly what we
> want.
> 
> There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes around here that
> unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, discussions about opening some
> of that up (including posting what we want to the public site) are going on
> now.
> 

For starters:
I think the J2EE stuff should be under at least the same license as the
rest of the JDK.

Personally I'm having a hard time getting particularly in uproar as I
think the central core of J2EE - Enterprise Java Beans is such a poor
standard, that I'm not particularly upset that its not *free*.  I should
not say these things publicly, as I still have to work in these things,
but in truth EJB and particularly Entity beans is a less that elegant
kludge.  

In truth J2EE is kind of a scam.  It claims to be aiming for
compatibility and universality but the truth is the vendors play too big
of a role in it.  They want to have lots of room for proprietary
extensions.  Its market one thing but actually sell another.

I'd rather see someone come up with an opensource standard that achieves
the goals of EJBs without being limited by its faulty design and
backward compatibility with its original faultier design.  Just my
humble opinion on that.

> This is fun.
> 
> p.s. The spec lead for JSR107 had a nice response to my complaints about the
> license issues for that JSR. It went something like this:
> 
> > As for the license, I can find no mention of Oracle requesting any money
> > for anything.  I seriously doubt if this license is significantly
> > different than licenses for JSP's sponsored by other companies.
> 
> Uh. Yea. Whatever dude.
> 

Right.  Why request money now?  I'll have to look at the JSR.  

> -jon
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
-- 
www.superlinksoftware.com
www.sourceforge.net/projects/poi - port of Excel format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!


The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 2002.1.30 4:15 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it
> doesn't give me a clear idea about "what we want".  Can you give me a
> good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect.  It just
> seems like we should be asking for something and being specific.
> 
> -Andy

That is a very good point. However, privately, Sun knows exactly what we
want.

There is still some stuff that goes on behind the scenes around here that
unfortunately isn't exposed. Needless to say, discussions about opening some
of that up (including posting what we want to the public site) are going on
now.

This is fun.

p.s. The spec lead for JSR107 had a nice response to my complaints about the
license issues for that JSR. It went something like this:

> As for the license, I can find no mention of Oracle requesting any money
> for anything.  I seriously doubt if this license is significantly
> different than licenses for JSP's sponsored by other companies.

Uh. Yea. Whatever dude.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

I still say we need to say "This is what we want" not just "This is
f*cked up".  I think we should follow similar rules as to writing a
letter of complaint (even if it has a certain Jon/Apache-like flare) 
-Andy

On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 18:01, Scott Sanders wrote:
> +1.  + 1!  Why should Apache be silent if the process in NOT open?  Publicity is 
>what this needs.  C# is more open than the JCP, and that is really, really sad.  If 
>we can't express these opinions, who will?  I am personally glad that jon is the 
>outspoken person that he is.  If he wasn't, would have the balls to publish that???  
>I cannot guess anyone right off.
> 
> Scott Sanders
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:59 PM
> > To: Jakarta General List
> > Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The Java Community Process (JCP) is not a "community" process 
> > at all. It's a way for Sun Inc. to claim they are open. You 
> > know it. I know it. Sun knows it. Let's stop deluding 
> > ourselves shall we?
> > 
> > I say we move "that flaming fireball" to the home page of *Apache*. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Ceki
> > 
> > At 17:10 30.01.2002 -0500, Ted Husted wrote:
> > >I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial 
> > matter at the 
> > >top of the home page, and would like to move it to the news 
> > and status 
> > >page.
> > >
> > >-Ted.
> > >
> > > Original Message 
> > >Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml
> > >Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 -
> > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >Reply-To: "Jakarta WebSite CVS List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >jon 02/01/30 13:53:04
> > >
> > >  Modified:docs index.html
> > >   xdocsindex.xml
> > >  Log:
> > >  lets have a little fun.
> > >  
> > >  Revision  ChangesPath
> > >  1.52  +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html
> > >  
> > >  Index: index.html  
> > > ===
> > >  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v
> > >  retrieving revision 1.51
> > >  retrieving revision 1.52
> > >  diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52
> > >  --- index.html29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 -  1.51
> > >  +++ index.html30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.52
> > >  @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@
> > > 
> >  
> > >
> > > 
> > >   
> > >  +  That
> > >flaming fireball in the sky...
> > >  +
> > >  +  
> > >  +  
> > >  +
> > >  +
> > >  +In a recent  > >href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su
> > nInterview
> > >">article,
> > >Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
> > >  +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
> > >  +
> > >  +
> > >  +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant 
> > momentum over the
> > >  +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open 
> > source efforts
> > >  +don't impact the viability of that effort."
> > >  +
> > >  +
> > >  +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether 
> > J2EE licensing
> > >  +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed 
> > it, it does).
> > >  +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java
> > >Community
> > >  +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim
> > >that
> > >  +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
> > >  +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
> > >  +licensing terms, feel free to contact  > >href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us 
> > know what you
> > >  +think. Thanks.
> > >  +
> > >  +
> > >  +
> > >  +  
> > >  +  
> >

RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Andrew C. Oliver]

My only issue and I guess this is directed more at you Jon, is it
doesn't give me a clear idea about "what we want".  Can you give me a
good idea and I'll be glad to submit a patch to that effect.  It just
seems like we should be asking for something and being specific.

-Andy


On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 17:53, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> Sometimes I (argh!) love Jon!
> =;o)
> 
> Paulo
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:07 PM
> > To: Jakarta General List
> > Subject: RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> > 
> > 
> > Why is that?
> > 
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:10 PM
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial 
> > > matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it 
> > > to the news and status page. 
> > > 
> > > -Ted.
> > > 
> > >  Original Message 
> > > Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml
> > > Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 -
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Reply-To: "Jakarta WebSite CVS List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > 
> > > jon 02/01/30 13:53:04
> > > 
> > >   Modified:docs index.html
> > >xdocsindex.xml
> > >   Log:
> > >   lets have a little fun.
> > >   
> > >   Revision  ChangesPath
> > >   1.52  +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html
> > >   
> > >   Index: index.html
> > >   ===
> > >   RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v
> > >   retrieving revision 1.51
> > >   retrieving revision 1.52
> > >   diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52
> > >   --- index.html  29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 -  1.51
> > >   +++ index.html  30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.52
> > >   @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@
> > >   
> > > 
> > >  
> > >
> > >   +  That
> > > flaming fireball in the sky...
> > >   +
> > >   +  
> > >   +  
> > >   +
> > >   +
> > >   +In a recent  > > href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Sun
> > > Interview">article,
> > > Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
> > >   +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
> > >   +
> > >   +
> > >   +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant 
> > > momentum over the
> > >   +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open 
> > > source efforts
> > >   +don't impact the viability of that effort."
> > >   +
> > >   +
> > >   +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE 
> > > licensing
> > >   +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed 
> > > it, it does).
> > >   +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the 
> > > Java Community
> > >   +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun 
> > > to claim that
> > >   +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
> > >   +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
> > >   +licensing terms, feel free to contact  > > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us 
> > > know what you
> > >   +think. Thanks.
> > >   +
> > >   +
> > >   +
> > >   +  
> > >   +  
> > >   +
> > >   + > > cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
> > >   +  
> > >   +
> > >  Welcome
> > >
> > >  
> > >   
> > >   
> > >   

RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Scott Sanders]

+1.  + 1!  Why should Apache be silent if the process in NOT open?  Publicity is 
+what this needs.  C# is more open than the JCP, and that is really, really sad.  If 
+we can't express these opinions, who will?  I am personally glad that jon is the 
+outspoken person that he is.  If he wasn't, would have the balls to publish that???  
+I cannot guess anyone right off.

Scott Sanders

> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:59 PM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> 
> 
> 
> The Java Community Process (JCP) is not a "community" process 
> at all. It's a way for Sun Inc. to claim they are open. You 
> know it. I know it. Sun knows it. Let's stop deluding 
> ourselves shall we?
> 
> I say we move "that flaming fireball" to the home page of *Apache*. 
> 
> -- 
> Ceki
> 
> At 17:10 30.01.2002 -0500, Ted Husted wrote:
> >I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial 
> matter at the 
> >top of the home page, and would like to move it to the news 
> and status 
> >page.
> >
> >-Ted.
> >
> > Original Message 
> >Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml
> >Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 -
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Reply-To: "Jakarta WebSite CVS List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >jon 02/01/30 13:53:04
> >
> >  Modified:docs index.html
> >   xdocsindex.xml
> >  Log:
> >  lets have a little fun.
> >  
> >  Revision  ChangesPath
> >  1.52  +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html
> >  
> >  Index: index.html  
> > ===
> >  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v
> >  retrieving revision 1.51
> >  retrieving revision 1.52
> >  diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52
> >  --- index.html29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 -  1.51
> >  +++ index.html30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.52
> >  @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@
> > 
>  
> >
> > 
> >   
> >  +  That
> >flaming fireball in the sky...
> >  +
> >  +  
> >  +  
> >  +
> >  +
> >  +In a recent  >href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su
> nInterview
> >">article,
> >Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
> >  +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
> >  +
> >  +
> >  +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant 
> momentum over the
> >  +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open 
> source efforts
> >  +don't impact the viability of that effort."
> >  +
> >  +
> >  +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether 
> J2EE licensing
> >  +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed 
> it, it does).
> >  +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java
> >Community
> >  +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim
> >that
> >  +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
> >  +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
> >  +licensing terms, feel free to contact  >href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us 
> know what you
> >  +think. Thanks.
> >  +
> >  +
> >  +
> >  +  
> >  +  
> >  +
> >  + >cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
> >  +  
> >  +
> > Welcome
> >   
> > 
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  1.21  +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml
> >  
> >  Index: index.xml  
> > ===
> >  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v
> >  retrieving revision 1.20
> >  retrieving revision 1.21
> >  diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21
> >  --- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 -  1.20
> >  +++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.21
> >  @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@
> >

Re: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Ceki Gülcü]

The Java Community Process (JCP) is not a "community" process at
all. It's a way for Sun Inc. to claim they are open. You know it. I
know it. Sun knows it. Let's stop deluding ourselves shall we?

I say we move "that flaming fireball" to the home page of *Apache*. 

-- 
Ceki

At 17:10 30.01.2002 -0500, Ted Husted wrote:
>I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial matter at the
>top of the home page, and would like to move it to the news and status
>page. 
>
>-Ted.
>
> Original Message 
>Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml
>Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 -
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: "Jakarta WebSite CVS List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>jon 02/01/30 13:53:04
>
>  Modified:docs index.html
>   xdocsindex.xml
>  Log:
>  lets have a little fun.
>  
>  Revision  ChangesPath
>  1.52  +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html
>  
>  Index: index.html
>  ===
>  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v
>  retrieving revision 1.51
>  retrieving revision 1.52
>  diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52
>  --- index.html29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 -  1.51
>  +++ index.html30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.52
>  @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@
>  
>
> 
>   
>  +  That
>flaming fireball in the sky...
>  +
>  +  
>  +  
>  +
>  +
>  +In a recent href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=SunInterview";>article,
>Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
>  +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
>  +
>  +
>  +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the
>  +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts
>  +don't impact the viability of that effort."
>  +
>  +
>  +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing
>  +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does).
>  +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java
>Community
>  +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim
>that
>  +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
>  +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
>  +licensing terms, feel free to contact href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us know what you
>  +think. Thanks.
>  +
>  +
>  +
>  +  
>  +  
>  +
>  +cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
>  +  
>  +
> Welcome
>   
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  1.21  +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml
>  
>  Index: index.xml
>  ===
>  RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v
>  retrieving revision 1.20
>  retrieving revision 1.21
>  diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21
>  --- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 -  1.20
>  +++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.21
>  @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@
>   
>   
>   
>  +
>  +
>  +In a recent  
>+href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=SunInterview";
>  +>article, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and
>Platform
>  +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
>  +
>  +
>  +
>  +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant momentum over the
>  +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open source efforts
>  +don't impact the viability of that effort."
>  +
>  +
>  +
>  +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE licensing
>  +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed it, it does).
>  +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the Java
>Community
>  +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun to claim
>that
>  +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
>  +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
>  +licensing terms, feel free to contact   +href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us know what
>you
>  +think. Thanks.
>  +
>  +
>  +
>  +
>   
>   
>   

RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Paulo Gaspar]

Sometimes I (argh!) love Jon!
=;o)

Paulo

> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Sanders [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:07 PM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> 
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:10 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> > 
> > 
> > I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial 
> > matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it 
> > to the news and status page. 
> > 
> > -Ted.
> > 
> >  Original Message 
> > Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml
> > Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 -
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Reply-To: "Jakarta WebSite CVS List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > jon 02/01/30 13:53:04
> > 
> >   Modified:docs index.html
> >xdocsindex.xml
> >   Log:
> >   lets have a little fun.
> >   
> >   Revision  ChangesPath
> >   1.52  +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html
> >   
> >   Index: index.html
> >   ===
> >   RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v
> >   retrieving revision 1.51
> >   retrieving revision 1.52
> >   diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52
> >   --- index.html29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 -  1.51
> >   +++ index.html30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.52
> >   @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@
> >   
> > 
> >  
> >
> >   +  That
> > flaming fireball in the sky...
> >   +
> >   +  
> >   +  
> >   +
> >   +
> >   +In a recent  > href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Sun
> > Interview">article,
> > Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
> >   +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
> >   +
> >   +
> >   +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant 
> > momentum over the
> >   +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open 
> > source efforts
> >   +don't impact the viability of that effort."
> >   +
> >   +
> >   +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE 
> > licensing
> >   +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed 
> > it, it does).
> >   +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the 
> > Java Community
> >   +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun 
> > to claim that
> >   +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
> >   +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
> >   +licensing terms, feel free to contact  > href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us 
> > know what you
> >   +think. Thanks.
> >   +
> >   +
> >   +
> >   +  
> >   +  
> >   +
> >   + > cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
> >   +  
> >   +
> >  Welcome
> >
> >  
> >   
> >   
> >   
> >   1.21  +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml
> >   
> >   Index: index.xml
> >   ===
> >   RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v
> >   retrieving revision 1.20
> >   retrieving revision 1.21
> >   diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21
> >   --- index.xml 20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 -  1.20
> >   +++ index.xml 30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.21
> >   @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@
> >
> >
> >
> >   +
> >   +
> >   +In a recent  >  
> > +href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su
> > nInterview
> > +"
> >   +>article, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility 
> > and Platform
> >   +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
> > 

RE: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]

[Scott Sanders]

Why is that?

> -Original Message-
> From: Ted Husted [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:10 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Fwd: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml]
> 
> 
> I'm not comfortable with carrying this type of editorial 
> matter at the top of the home page, and would like to move it 
> to the news and status page. 
> 
> -Ted.
> 
>  Original Message 
> Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-site2/xdocs index.xml
> Date: 30 Jan 2002 21:53:04 -
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: "Jakarta WebSite CVS List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> jon 02/01/30 13:53:04
> 
>   Modified:docs index.html
>xdocsindex.xml
>   Log:
>   lets have a little fun.
>   
>   Revision  ChangesPath
>   1.52  +32 -0 jakarta-site2/docs/index.html
>   
>   Index: index.html
>   ===
>   RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/docs/index.html,v
>   retrieving revision 1.51
>   retrieving revision 1.52
>   diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52
>   --- index.html  29 Jan 2002 01:47:06 -  1.51
>   +++ index.html  30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.52
>   @@ -140,6 +140,38 @@
>   
> 
>  
>
>   +  That
> flaming fireball in the sky...
>   +
>   +  
>   +  
>   +
>   +
>   +In a recent  href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Sun
> Interview">article,
> Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility and Platform
>   +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
>   +
>   +
>   +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant 
> momentum over the
>   +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open 
> source efforts
>   +don't impact the viability of that effort."
>   +
>   +
>   +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE 
> licensing
>   +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed 
> it, it does).
>   +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the 
> Java Community
>   +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun 
> to claim that
>   +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
>   +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
>   +licensing terms, feel free to contact  href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us 
> know what you
>   +think. Thanks.
>   +
>   +
>   +
>   +  
>   +  
>   +
>   + cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" width="100%">
>   +  
>   +
>  Welcome
>
>  
>   
>   
>   
>   1.21  +28 -0 jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml
>   
>   Index: index.xml
>   ===
>   RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-site2/xdocs/index.xml,v
>   retrieving revision 1.20
>   retrieving revision 1.21
>   diff -u -r1.20 -r1.21
>   --- index.xml   20 Jan 2002 16:28:07 -  1.20
>   +++ index.xml   30 Jan 2002 21:53:03 -  1.21
>   @@ -9,6 +9,34 @@
>
>
>
>   +
>   +
>   +In a recent   
> +href="http://www.theserverside.com/resources/article.jsp?l=Su
> nInterview
> +"
>   +>article, Karen Tegan, Director of J2EE Compatibility 
> and Platform
>   +Services for Sun Microsystems, had the following to say:
>   +
>   +
>   +
>   +"The J2EE Compatible brand has achieved significant 
> momentum over the
>   +past two years, and we want to make sure that any open 
> source efforts
>   +don't impact the viability of that effort."
>   +
>   +
>   +
>   +In other words, Sun doesn't give a hoot about whether J2EE 
> licensing
>   +restricts open source J2EE products (in case you missed 
> it, it does).
>   +Thus, the Apache Software Foundation's involvement in the 
> Java Community
>   +Process (JCP) is simply an advertising statement for Sun 
> to claim that
>   +they have a 'vision which uses open standards and non-proprietary
>   +interfaces'. If you would like to express your opinions of Sun's
>   +licensing terms, feel free to contact+href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and let us 
> know what you
>   +think. Thanks.
>   +
>   +
>   +
>   +
>
>
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:  
> 
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, 
> e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
> 
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: