We're using -Mn (milestone) suffixes in Geronimo. In the release
notes we specifically cal out this is not a certified version but a
work in progress.
On Mar 15, 2007, at 5:39 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
As long as you mark it as UNTESTED or BETA per the JAX-WS part -
IOW, make no clai
As long as you mark it as UNTESTED or BETA per the JAX-WS part - IOW,
make no claim about compatibility, you're fine.
geir
On Mar 13, 2007, at 4:14 AM, Bozhong Lin wrote:
Hi,
Apache CXF team is planning for its 2.0 final release. In benefit
of CXF users, we would like to cut 2.0 release s
legal-discuss: Any chance someone could comment on this that has access to
the TCK license?
Many thanks,
- Dan
On 3/13/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bozhong Lin wrote:
> we would like to cut 2.0 release sooner without fully passing
> JAX-WS TCK, and plan to push JAX-WS TCK t
Bozhong Lin wrote:
> we would like to cut 2.0 release sooner without fully passing
> JAX-WS TCK, and plan to push JAX-WS TCK test into 2.1 release
> plan. Of course, in CXF 2.0 release note, we will explicitly
> mention that Apache CXF does NOT claim any JAX-WS compliant
> yet, like what we did wi
IANAL, but I have some experience with TCKs.
You should be fine with releasing CXF as long as you don't claim
compliance with a JSR whose TCK you don't pass. You would want to
carefully review the documentation to make the non-compliance clear
wherever the relevant JSRs are mentioned.
So
Bo,
I believe this should be ok from a legal standpoint.
thanks,
dims
On 3/13/07, Bozhong Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Apache CXF team is planning for its 2.0 final release. In benefit of CXF
users, we would like to cut 2.0 release sooner without fully passing
JAX-WS TCK, and plan to pu
Hi,
Apache CXF team is planning for its 2.0 final release. In benefit of CXF
users, we would like to cut 2.0 release sooner without fully passing
JAX-WS TCK, and plan to push JAX-WS TCK test into 2.1 release plan. Of
course, in CXF 2.0 release note, we will explicitly mention that Apache
CXF
