You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Miroslav Halas <ob...@bastafidli.com> on 2003/10/06 23:15:35 UTC
Re: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components &
Apache/OW collaboration
Brian and Jean-Bernard,
maybe this is a silly question, but somewhere
(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo-proposal.html) I have
read that one of the main purposes behind starting Geronimo project was
absence of ASF (or BSD like) licensed J2EE server. If Objectweb is
willing to change license on some of its components, maybe it would be
possible to change the license of Jonas as well.
Question: Would that be possible / feasible at all ?
In so then there would be no need to reimplement the whole J2EE stack
again just to use a different license.
Not sure what are other reasons behind Geronimo, but if one of them is
to use already available J2EE stack components other than then ones
provided by Objectweb, wouldn't it be better to just improve Jonas to be
truly plug an play with ability to use for example different EJB
container (OpenEJB)?
I believe implementation of full J2EE spec is not a trivial task as you
can see from the history of Jonas, JBoss and others. Change of license
could save (or redirect to more or faster achievable goals) lots of
development resources if license is the only reason and also help
establish de-facto standard (similar to Apache HTTP server, or Tomcat
JSP container) faster (especially since hopefully Jonas will be soon
J2EE certified thanks to the Sun's scholarship Objectweb received).
Hope this is not too off topic,
Miro Halas
Brian Behlendorf wrote on 10/6/2003, 4:00 PM:
>
> That's terrific news, Jean-Bernard. Thanks!
>
> Geronimo developers: this should encourage you to look at the code
> ObjectWeb has implemented for its J2EE server, to see if there are any
> places where collaboration would be preferable to reimplementation.
> To be
> clear, BSD-licensed code from any party may be incorporated into Apache
> releases licensed under the Apache license. I would encourage such
> collaboration work to take place wherever the "home" is for such code,
> rather than importing the code into Apache's CVS trees and creating (even
> unintentionally) an Apache-specific branch. Perhaps someone could lead a
> discussion about the dev & release cycle that accounts for such
> externally-developed components. Be aware that the agreements that cover
> your contributions to the ASF would not apply to contributions you'd make
> to ObjectWeb components; I don't know if ObjectWeb has contributor
> agreements like we do.
>
> I now leave this issue in the capable hands of the Geronimo community.
>
> Brian
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Jean-Bernard Stefani wrote:
> > We (ObjectWeb) owe you a response on possible changes of licenses for
> > ObjectWeb components, to further the possibility for collaboration
> between
> > Apache and ObjectWeb.
> >
> > I am happy to report that both the ObjectWeb Board and the ObjectWeb
> > College of Architects have agreed that, for ObjectWeb components
> that are
> > to be developed collaboratively with the Apache Software Foundation, a
> > change of license from LGPL to BSD is encouraged.
> >
> > Ultimately, of course, the final responsibility for effecting such a
> change
> > lies with the copyright holders of the source code under consideration.
> >
> > For the two cases at hand, namely the JOTM transaction engine and
> the ASM
> > bytecode manipulator, I am happy to report that the respective
> copyright
> > holders are ready to make this change, should the ASF require it.
> >
> > As we discussed in previous messages, I believe such a policy meets the
> > requirements of the ASF for incorporating ObjectWeb components in
> its code
> > base.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Jean-Bernard
> >
> >
> > *************************************************************
> > Jean-Bernard STEFANI
> > Research Director, SARDES Project
> > INRIA Rhône-Alpes
> > 655, avenue de l'Europe
> > Montbonnot
> > 38334 St Ismier Cedex
> > France
> > tel : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 57
> > fax : +33 (0)4 76 61 52 52
> > email : Jean-Bernard.Stefani@inria.fr
> > *************************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the
> architecture@objectweb.org mailing list.
> To unsubscribe: mailto:architecture-unsubscribe@objectweb.org
> For general help: mailto:sympa@objectweb.org?subject=help
> ObjectWeb mailing lists service homepage: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
Re: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components
& Apache/OW collaboration
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Miroslav Halas wrote:
> Brian and Jean-Bernard,
>
> maybe this is a silly question, but somewhere
> (http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo-proposal.html) I have
> read that one of the main purposes behind starting Geronimo project was
> absence of ASF (or BSD like) licensed J2EE server. If Objectweb is
> willing to change license on some of its components, maybe it would be
> possible to change the license of Jonas as well.
>
> Question: Would that be possible / feasible at all ?
I can't speak for ObjectWeb on licensing all of JOnAS under the BSD. I
can say that even if they were to do so, there might still be good reason
to have an more than one BSD-licensed Sun-certified J2EE server.
"Duplication of effort" should be avoided of course, but even when writing
standards-conformant software, there can be genuinely different approaches
with different tradeoffs - speed vs. code complexity, for example, or
small runtime memory size versus everything else. Furthermore, if two
teams are separately trying to solve the same problem, your odds of
finding the right answer are greater than if you just had one team of
similar size, and both teams can probably enjoy the fruits of the winning
team's efforts.
One thing I've suggested to a couple of others is the idea of an "open
source J2EE implementors' forum", a mailing list hosted some place
"neutral" (Jean-Pierre suggested java.net, that makes sense to me) which
would be a place where developers from Geronimo, JOnAS, heck even JBoss
could discuss topics germane to any open source J2EE, from certification
to further code sharing to... who knows.
Brian
Re: [ObjectWeb architecture] Re: licenses for ObjectWeb components
& Apache/OW collaboration
Posted by Pierre-Yves Gibello <pi...@experlog.com>.
Miroslav Halas wrote:
>Brian and Jean-Bernard,
>
>maybe this is a silly question, but somewhere
>(http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo-proposal.html) I have
>read that one of the main purposes behind starting Geronimo project was
>absence of ASF (or BSD like) licensed J2EE server. If Objectweb is
>willing to change license on some of its components, maybe it would be
>possible to change the license of Jonas as well.
>
>Question: Would that be possible / feasible at all ?
>
>In so then there would be no need to reimplement the whole J2EE stack
>again just to use a different license.
>
>Not sure what are other reasons behind Geronimo, but if one of them is
>to use already available J2EE stack components other than then ones
>provided by Objectweb, wouldn't it be better to just improve Jonas to be
>truly plug an play with ability to use for example different EJB
>container (OpenEJB)?
>
>
I don't believe having multiple open-source J2EE projects is a loss of
energy. Nor is it a war.
It is closer to sound competition, or "coopetition"; See how we at
ObjectWeb already use apache components, like Tomcat; also, on the
"political" ground, multiple actors have proven to be stronger, for
example to make Sun's position evolve concerning certification.
Such a process makes each of us better, it's just like we are multiple
participants to a marathon race, a condition to run fast.
I am also convinced we - the IT industry - need even more than 2
implementations to make open-source J2EE credible (at least 2 certified
ones would be good). Then we'll be the big alternative to commercial app
servers.
So, welcome Geronimo !
Regards,
Pierre-Yves Gibello - ExperLog (and ObjectWeb board)