From: Scott M Stark <scott.stark@jb...> - 2005-06-24 01:12:25
So while I agree in principal with simply boycotting the specs, this
essentially would give away this area to the spec author vendors. So it
looks like the only way to do an unfettered implementation is to employ
the old reverse engineering hacking of old without any reference to the
Adrian Brock wrote:
>Section 2.3 of Microsoft's license is incompatible with the
>terms of the LGPL/GPL and also the section that allows the license
>to be revoked.
>It is also incompatible with section 7 of OSI in general
>Microsoft have a strange definition of "nondiscrimantory"
>I guess that should be "MSnondiscrimantory" :-)
>My gut reaction is to not implement encumbered specs.
>I'd recommend you proceed by making it possible to plugin a WS-Security
>implementation into JBoss WS. But how you go about implementing
>an OSI compatible WS-Security I can't fathom.
>Which probably means it cannot be distributed via sourceforge.
>Although there are WS-Security implementations on sourceforge,
>so what do I know?
>If I read the MS license correctly, it would be possible to
>have a public cvs and download on a JBoss machine, but anybody
>that wanted to distribute or use the implementation (source or binary)
>would have to get a license from MS (ableit royalty free).
>i.e. we would have to use a non OSI compatible license.
>We would also have to restrict cvs r/w access to MS licensees.
>The patents problem is a non-issue in my mind.
>If there really are valid patents (not defensive patents because the
>US patent system is broken),
>they are only valid against specific business/industrial processes,
>which would take a court a lot of streching to attach to
>"the security of a generic RPC invocation".
Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.