Geir, No one here has ambition of teching you ethics or giving you a moral compass. As far as facts re:code, here is an etichal example from contirubtors to Java clone:http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathxIt says that you can't look at Sun's code.
You can't look at Sun's code not because of ethical reasons, but because it historically hasn't been licensed in a way that was clear about retention by unaided memory.
Notice how they have no restrictions about looking at open source code - the premise behind open source (free software, really) is to "to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software".
Now, the issue of copyright infringement is entirely different than independently implementing an idea you have seen somewhere,but that's not what we're talking about.
And here is what people think is unethical, bypasing CVS so that the orginal code and their changes are not seen:http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200311.mbox/%3C43008338-1C37-11D8-A4C7-000A95A01192 at 4quarters dot com%3EOne would expect to submit a change in CVS, so there is a track record.
Are you referring to taking the CVS offline? LOL That's done for one reason only - so that the ASF doesn't engage in contributory infringement of someone elses copyright. By removing public access to all forms of the code in question, the ASF was giving JBoss the benefit of the doubt and stopping all redistribution while it investigated the claim. We do it anytime there is a question about code provenance. The ASF has done it before and since, and I expect it will happen again. This kind of oversight is one of the reasons the ASF exists.
This is a good reason to use an obtusifier in your ant scrtip, parasites.
I'm going to assume this some cut and paste mistake, as it's much more incoherent than usual.
re:attribution:http://www.hessiancsharp.org - see how they attribute to orignal design ideas! Of course it was re-impleneted in a diferent langage. And:http://geronimo.apache.org/20041028_jbossresponse.pdf - Again, your words that only ideas were copied on page 8. The only way to assure ideas are not copied is to patent, to protect against parasites. No one linkes patents, but GlueCode and Geir are a good argment for patents.So there are some ethical issues, a bit of a gray area for sure, use your moral compass to see what is best for the profesion. jBoss did accuse GlueCode employees of takeing code and ideas of work for hire code and removing atttribution, and that is a fact.
Not exactly. Go read the letter. There were no Gluecode employees working on Geronimo at that time. That happened months later after all was resolved.
And the code that was assumed to have had attribution removed was originally code from Apache Log4J, which is apache licensed. Go review the facts again.
You said jBoss is OK w/ it, url?You stated that your work for GlueCode, and you are involved in Harmony as per posts. Do I need to link them?
Yes, you'll have to.
I stopped working for Gluecode before Harmony was announced, if my memory serves me. (And either way, Gluecode had no business interest in Harmony....)
Therefore, GlueCode is somewhat assoicated w/ Harmony - so why play stupid.
I guess my cat is somewhat associated with Harmony because I had it while I was working on Harmony, as is the hamburger I ate that week?
It may be wise of Sun to patent parts of Java.You bring a colud of doubt as to Harmony for sure. Had you and GlueCode stayed out, it would be a warm and fuzzy.You made claims that you code in this thread, can you give us a url of your oringal source code comitt (in ASF where each committ is normaly tracked or elsewhere. ot: my comits are on sf.net infonoia project)?
We're going to play "my commit is bigger than your commit"? You'r commits are bigger. You win. Clearly, I'm doing more management than heads down coding these days, but I still code. It ebbs and flows. Maybe for fun I'll correct your code on my blog. ;)
As for patenting parts of Java, Sun can and has certainly done that, as have lots of other companies. IBM has patents in that area, I'd bet (I don't know for sure). And any independent implementation of Java that passes the TCK gets the rights to any patents Sun (and any other member of the expert group) has if they are necessary for implementing Java. This applies to any JSR. I have no clue why you'd bring this up unless you didn't understand that.
Again, a facutal url of code you wrote should be easy, no?In general, you started this sub-thread by calling on Sun to open source their code (which it is open source, do you want an url).
Yes please. Give me a URL for Java SE code that is available under an open source license. Please. Please. Please. Please.
My response is that due to your recent track record, you should be the last to make that claim.Now you can spin w/ words but nor urls, or find a marketing forum to "contribute"..V
I'm not sure what to say here, Vic. The simple fact is that your understanding of the JBoss/Geronimo issue is completely and utterly wrong. We've gone over this countless times, it seems, and my only explanation is that you have some pathological dislike for me, and thus refuse to acknowledge the facts.
The code that was mentioned either was code that was dual licensed by an original author (so they had the right to contribute to anyone under any license of their choosing) or code that originally came from Apache itself. JBoss Inc, as steward of their codebase was right in calling it to the attention of the ASF. The ASF did the right thing - they stopped redistributing the code (by shutting down access to CVS) and examined the claims in detail. I was the personal face on it (someone had to write email), but it was overseen by the Incubator PMC, the ASF membership, and the board.
My father once said something very wise - "Never argue with a fool - people might not know the difference". I'm thinking of heeding his advice... :)