On the IETF thread, the early standards were 'clean'. And there is a
requirement to register patent interests against RFC's.
On 07/06/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> the IETF specifically permits (and, some may say, encourages)
> encumbered standards
Bingo. Nicely explained.
I'm glad someone else sees the problem.
We need to keep our software 100% clean; its amazing how much IP law you
need to know to write code and give it away.
Which is why the generic form API for AMQP should be derived from AMQP, not
JMS.
AMQP itself was designed most
James,
We'll be very sorry to loose you as a mentor.
Best regards,
John
On 06/12/06, James Strachan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Unfortunately I don't have the spare time these days.
--
James
---
http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
--
Great analysis.
I concur with the points.
John
On 17/11/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 11/17/06, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 17, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Cliff Schmidt wrote:
> > The Qpid community has been debating whether or not they should
> > include an unreleas
I don't think its the same as releasing another projects code.
A good example is when SubVersion included APR as part of its code base. No
one would have confused that as a release of APR, and it was patched and
modded, and the APR team were kept in the loop.
There is a difference between "relea
