qpid-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Paul Fremantle" <pzf...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: NMS
Date Wed, 06 Jun 2007 14:41:11 GMT
Unfortunately the people who wrote NMS did look at the spec.

The only way to do this that doesn't break IP copyright rules is very
complex and expensive. It usually involves a team who have had no
exposure to any of the IP in question, either directly or indirectly,
plus some IP lawyers on $000s a day and a team of reviewers who have
experience of the IP and can provide carefully filtered feedback via
the lawyers.

I don't imaging qpid wants to go through that process.


On 6/6/07, Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well I'm ok then, I don't think I've ever looked at the spec!
> On 06/06/07, Robert Greig <robert.j.greig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 06/06/07, Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > This sounds likely to me. I think you can break Sun's rules if you are
> > not a
> > > licensee, after all you were never a party to the agreement in the first
> > > place. If IBM are a licensee and they have rewritten JMS as XMS in C++
> > they
> > > must have an exception.
> >
> > Unfortunately unless you try to claim you have never read or
> > downloaded the JMS spec, you have agreed to its terms and conditions:
> >
> > "By viewing, downloading or otherwise copying the Specification, you agree
> > that you have read, understood, and will comply with all of the terms
> > and conditions set forth herein"
> >
> > RG
> >

Paul Fremantle
Co-Founder and VP of Technical Sales, WSO2

blog: http://pzf.fremantle.org

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com

View raw message