John O'Hara wrote:
> On the IETF thread, the early standards were 'clean'. And there is a
> requirement to register patent interests against RFC's.
Yes *early* IETF standards were clean, but they are supposed to be the
guardians of the I in IETF, and have been delinquent by allowing IP
constrain
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
the JMS API under an unencumbered license we could do
> that, otherwise we could start from scratch.
>
> This Apache Messaging API could then be freely implementable under
> AL2.0 license rules without having to worry about this sort of IP
FWIW this is why we created NMS for .Net and CMS for C++
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> the IETF specifically permits (and, some may say, encourages)
> encumbered standards now. So, even implementing IETF standards
> is now dangerous.
The IETF has lost a lot of credibility as an independent standards body, and
really ought to be ashamed. But they are har
AIUI, the legality of Sun's specification licenses is considered dubious.
Not that dubious defines a stance or action, just a note.
--- Noel
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 6/7/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> AMQP itself was designed mostly based on IETF concepts which are
>> unencumbered (like smtp, nntp, nfs).
>
> This is not true going forward as the IETF specifically permits (and,
> some may say, encourages) encumbered
On 6/7/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AMQP itself was designed mostly based on IETF concepts which are
unencumbered (like smtp, nntp, nfs).
This is not true going forward as the IETF specifically permits (and,
some may say, encourages) encumbered standards now. So, even
implementin
On 6/7/07, John O'Hara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
t from scratch.
This Apache Messaging API could then be freely implementable under
AL2.0 license rules without having to worry about this sort of IP
FWIW this is why we created NMS for .Net and CMS for C++ along with
APIs for Ruby, Python, Perl, PHP, Smalltalk and yes, even Flash as
well. Though c
e this seems to be in the Idea category... I would have thought
> that there would need some patents in place to enforce it.
Not really. Once you agree to a contract (like that license) its
simply contract law, AFAIK.
> > at the JMS specification. Secondly the JMS copyright. Since, as f
On 6/7/07, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what is NMS?
NMS is a .NET version of JMS.
Not quite. Its a .Net Messaging API to the various MOMs available on
the .Net platform such as MSMQ, TibCo, MQSeries together with new
implementations such as for ActiveMQ and Stomp. It
On Thursday 07 June 2007 21:34, Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > Since this seems to be in the Idea category... I would have thought
> > that there would need some patents in place to enforce it.
>
> Not really. Once you agree to a contract (like that license) its
> simply contract law, AFAIK.
Nitpicking
ed some patents in place to enforce it.
>
> Not really. Once you agree to a contract (like that license) its
> simply contract law, AFAIK.
>
>
> > > at the JMS specification. Secondly the JMS copyright. Since, as far as
> > > I can see, NMS is likely to be a "de
gt; Since this seems to be in the Idea category... I would have thought
> that there would need some patents in place to enforce it.
Not really. Once you agree to a contract (like that license) its
simply contract law, AFAIK.
> > at the JMS specification. Secondly the JMS copyright. Sin
uals clauses" are intended to
mitigate.
I haven't formed an opinion on the issue in chief yet, but thought the
above might be helpful in structuring our review of the issue regarding
similarities between the JMS specification and the NMS API.
Regards,
Jim
-Original Message-
Fr
need some patents in place to enforce it.
Not really. Once you agree to a contract (like that license) its
simply contract law, AFAIK.
> at the JMS specification. Secondly the JMS copyright. Since, as far as
> I can see, NMS is likely to be a "derived work" of JMS it is also
e patents in place to enforce it.
at the JMS specification. Secondly the JMS copyright. Since, as far as
I can see, NMS is likely to be a "derived work" of JMS it is also
likely that it breaches the copyright of the spec.
I can assure you that no copying has taken place. NMS was initiall
what is NMS?
NMS is a .NET version of JMS. In other words an API that allows .NET
clients to interact with a messaging server, especially one that
follows the same semantics as JMS (i.e. a JMS server like Apache
ActiveMQ)
what is the NMS API?
Same as above.
who specficies it?
NMS has been
ar as
I can see, NMS is likely to be a "derived work" of JMS it is also
likely that it breaches the copyright of the spec.
Paul
On 6/7/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I ceased use of and destroyed my copy of the Specification years ago =)
But seriously, what kind of
On 6/7/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I ceased use of and destroyed my copy of the Specification years ago =)
But seriously, what kind of IP is it that is being violated?
copyright? patent? or some other kind that I'm not aware of?
what is NMS?
what is the NM
en thinking about implementing the NMS API as part of the
QPID .Net client. However we are concerned about potential legal issues.
It seems to me that the NMS API is very similar to the JMS one but the
JMS specification specifically licenses the technology "only for Java".
This is the rel
NMS is something that the Apache ActiveMQ team have done.
http://activemq.apache.org/nms/
Whether we are in violation of the Sun licenses is a fine question.
Paul
On 6/6/07, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
which standards body created NMS?
- robert
On 6/1/07, Carl Tr
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: NMS
>
> Hello,
>
> We have been thinking about implementing the NMS API as part
> of the QPID .Net client. However we are concerned about
> potential legal issues.
> It seems to me that the NMS API is very similar to th
which standards body created NMS?
- robert
On 6/1/07, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Coping incubator general and apache legal lists on this thread for
additional comments on this topic.
Carl.
John O'Hara wrote:
> Yes, IBM are I fully paid up licensee of Java techno
some time
back,
and they said they did not have the right to grant that approval
Unless Apache has a license to do this that I am not aware of, we are
not on
safe ground since NMS is clearly a derived work of JMS.
Wait for the lawyers
John
On 01/06/07, Colin Crist <[EMAIL PROTECTED
: 01 June 2007 15:34
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; general@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: NMS
>
> Hello,
>
> We have been thinking about implementing the NMS API as part
> of the QPID .Net client. However we are concerned about
>
Hello,
We have been thinking about implementing the NMS API as part of the
QPID .Net client. However we are concerned about potential legal issues.
It seems to me that the NMS API is very similar to the JMS one but the
JMS specification specifically licenses the technology "only for Java&qu
27 matches
Mail list logo
