First of all, I have to admit that it took quite some time to reply to
this message because I've been busy preparing to leave the U.K. (and
will resume working in Tmax from 1 Aug) and more importantly I have
taken the copyright issue into very deep consideration.
> 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.
OK. Do I have to sign the SCA before I get a commit permit and check in
FIME?
Cheers,
Ias
>
> 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
>>
>