re: license...
This would be for the FIME specific files, right? If so, I'm OK with that.
re: packages...
Before getting to the packages, we probably should mention copyright
owners. I can't remember if anybody has mentioned already this, skip
until "back to packages" below if that is the case...
As you know, copyright is different to the license. For example, all
apache code is copyright ASF. Their license (ASL 2.0) is pretty
liberal, but ASF insists that all contributions to their projects
explicitly grant copyright to ASF [clarifying that was one of the
benefits of ASL 2.0 over the older ASL - and committers need to
explicitly sign an agreement. Sun has done that for their Apache
projects]. There are many good reasons for that requirement, and some
of us have had unsatisfying experiences with projects where there were
many multiple copyright owners that had to be contacted when, for
example, we wanted to improve the license.
This same requirement for copyright ownership is present for FI and
other JWSDP projects [as another example, these code components are used
in the Java EE and Java SE reference implementations which imposes some
constraints on us as the leads for these JSRs].
So, the same way that Apache requests the copyright assignment, Sun
requires the same thing. THis is done through the SCA. Jim just pushed
out a nice blog on this that is getting a fair amount of attention; see
http://weblogs.java.net/blog/driscoll/archive/2005/07/newest_concern.html.
Hopefully you won't see the Sun copyright ownership as an evil plot and
you will sign the SCA [the instructions are at:
https://jwsdp.dev.java.net/contributions.html#codecontributions]. If
you have issues with the SCA, let me know and I'll address them when I'm
back on Monday - I'm supposedly on vacation today.
...
Now, back to packages. We are using com.sun.* because that is what we
use directly inside our implementation. I'd use the same for your FIME
pieces.
Are we actually using org.jvnet anywhere in the FI code today?
- eduard/o
Changshin Lee wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After succeeding in the interoperability test between FIME and FISE in a
> web services case, I thought FIME was ready to get on board. Here are my
> ideas and questions on checking FIME in the FI project.
>
> 1. Module name
>
> I think "FIME (pronounced /faim/)" is good. FastInfosetME or
> FastInfosetJavaME could be more self-commentary though.
>
> 2. Package name
>
> FISE uses com.sun, but I'm not really sure whether I can (or should) use
> it. Please let me hear your opinions on that. I changed org.jvnet to
> ias.me.fi.jvnet temporarily in FIME to avoid confusion. Should I use
> org.jvnet for FISE as well?
>
> 3. License
>
> I discussed this issue before, so what I'd like to do for that is changing
>
> * Fast Infoset ver. 0.1 software ("Software")
>
> to
>
> * FIME (Fast Infoset ME) ver. 0.1 software ("Software")
>
> . Is it OK?
>
> That's all. I'm looking forward to your response.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ias
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_fi.dev.java.net
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_fi.dev.java.net
>