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
