| OSGi for OSGi's sake [message #12025] |
Mon, 10 March 2003 10:10  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Peter.Kriens.aQute.se
I feel I am starting to look like I am selling OSGi for OSGi's sake.
However, this is not the case, I am a strong believer that decisions
should be taken on the value for Eclipse, not OSGi. The current
discussion is imho to establish knowledge about the different related
technologies (that is why I asked Avalon's Leo Simons to react). It is
obvious that OSGi has wrestled in the past 5 years with many of the same
problems we are facing, that should explain my -many- reactions.
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
|
|
|
| Re: OSGi for OSGi's sake [message #12051 is a reply to message #12025] |
Mon, 10 March 2003 14:33  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: mcconnell.apache.org
Peter:
Its been a while since I looked over OSGi. I was initially put off by
the OSGi license agreement which I see as a gapping source for abuse on
success (I'm referring to the patent issue). It seems to me that as
long as OSGi does not hold significant mind-share, then the license for
OSGi is relatively safe. However, as soon as OSGi gets any traction -
your at the mercy of a patent holder.
As things stand - any OSGi related works fall under a black list while
this situation remains open. Are you aware of anything that has changed
recently that would eliminate this concern?
Cheers, Steve.
pkriens wrote:
> I feel I am starting to look like I am selling OSGi for OSGi's sake.
> However, this is not the case, I am a strong believer that decisions
> should be taken on the value for Eclipse, not OSGi. The current
> discussion is imho to establish knowledge about the different related
> technologies (that is why I asked Avalon's Leo Simons to react). It is
> obvious that OSGi has wrestled in the past 5 years with many of the same
> problems we are facing, that should explain my -many- reactions.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Peter Kriens
>
|
|
|
| Re: OSGi for OSGi's sake [message #12129 is a reply to message #12051] |
Mon, 10 March 2003 16:40 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: Peter.Kriens.aQute.se
Can you elaborate about this patent clause in the license agreement?
Everybody can download the spec from the web for free without signing a
license, not even a click-through, so I am not sure I understand what
you mean?
There is of course the usual disclaimers about possible patents but that
is also true for any open source project. The OSGi has a system where
people in the expert groups must state they are not aware of any patent
claims their company has on the spec before it is published. So OSGi
specs are more likely to be patent free than the average open source
project.
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
> Peter:
>
> Its been a while since I looked over OSGi. I was initially put off by
> the OSGi license agreement which I see as a gapping source for abuse on
> success (I'm referring to the patent issue). It seems to me that as
> long as OSGi does not hold significant mind-share, then the license for
> OSGi is relatively safe. However, as soon as OSGi gets any traction -
> your at the mercy of a patent holder.
>
> As things stand - any OSGi related works fall under a black list while
> this situation remains open. Are you aware of anything that has changed
> recently that would eliminate this concern?
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> pkriens wrote:
>
>> I feel I am starting to look like I am selling OSGi for OSGi's sake.
>> However, this is not the case, I am a strong believer that decisions
>> should be taken on the value for Eclipse, not OSGi. The current
>> discussion is imho to establish knowledge about the different related
>> technologies (that is why I asked Avalon's Leo Simons to react). It is
>> obvious that OSGi has wrestled in the past 5 years with many of the
>> same problems we are facing, that should explain my -many- reactions.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Peter Kriens
>>
>
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03230 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
