JBoss: Sun Needs Us
Subject:   Tom=misinformation (not to mention rudeness)
Date:   2002-04-17 14:59:38
From:   mdubord
Response to: OK Tom

I will have to retract my previous comment about removing myself from the conversation. I did read the LGPL Tom, and you are seriously mistaken if you think that license means that the originator (copyright holder) cannot close the source. The LGPL is a license to distribute source code to an end user (who will probably also happen to be a developer):

0. This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General Public License (also called "this License"). Each licensee is addressed as "you".

It says nothing (I challenge you to produce a quote from the license) about the copyright holders rights to the source, which under US and internation law are, I imagine, that s/he can do what s/he damn well pleases with it. Of course, you are probably being intentionally obtuse in thinking that I mean that Marc Fleury can run around and tell everyone to stop using the previously downloaded copies of JBoss. I mean that JBoss group as a copyright holder can close source at any time. This is what Lutris did. I know that you are too busy being belligerent to get the facts straight, but I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread to understand that you are incorrect.

Also, take 5 minutes and read the quote on JBoss:

"First and most important, JBoss continues to be distributed through the website. JBoss remains a highly successful, fully featured and cost-effective J2EE server solution available for free download under the LGPL license.

Lutris' decision to close its source seems clearly driven by its own business considerations and not by Sun."

I'm not making this stuff up.

Since you like to pick and choose what you respond to in my posts, please address this one particular point:

JBoss says Lutris is lying and that Lutris closing its source had to do with business, not because Sun had a problem with Open Source. Then JBoss comes along and says that Sun won't give them a license because they're Open Source -- the same thing they accused Lutris of saying. And yet, they still keep this statement on their website. Now, who's lying and who's telling the truth?

Lutris was IN FACT open source. JBoss uses portions of it (this is what used to appear in the message output when you start JBoss). Enhydra was based on JOnAS, which is Open Source. Don't believe me? Check out Richard Monson Haefel's EJB book from O'Reilly, second edition. It's right there in the back.

In any case, I really have been following this a long time Tom, and I really am paying close attention to what is going on in the industry. Lastly, I'm going to challenge you to do something which may be a bit difficult, but I'd like you to try to think critically about this for a second: show me in the article above where JBoss group gives any direct evidence (the quote from the lady at Sun is vague) that they were denied. I don't need to you scan anything, just show me a statement made by JBoss where they say the were explicitly denied because they were Open Source. Sun says no such thing. They talk about diluting the brand. This means they don't just want to hand out for free their certification (which means nothing incidentally). I don't blame them. It's a revenue stream for a product they're giving away for free (Java VM).

It has been pointed out to me by some of my friends that your comments are curiously defensive for someone with no ties to the JBoss group. Would you mind clarifying who you are, and what your relation to (and interest in) the JBoss group is? Thanks a bunch good buddy. You're worth a million laughs.

1 to 1 of 1
1 to 1 of 1