We distribute jBPM BPEL today under a modified version of the LGPL. The
only updates we made to LGPL were to accomodate the requirements of the
BPEL licensing.
regards, tom.
| -----Original Message-----
| From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
| [mailto:bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James Moody
| Sent: donderdag 11 mei 2006 15:32
| To: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
| Subject: RE: [bpel-dev] Offer of donation of WS-BPEL
| implementationto assistproject development
|
|
| Sounds great. As a further clarification, is the license
| mentioned below a "special offer" to aid in this project, or
| can others download jBPM BPEL under this license today?
|
| I'll forward any info from IP to the list.
|
| Thanks,
|
| james
|
| bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/11/2006 01:08:58 AM:
|
| > James,
| >
| > Let me take that question off Mark. The proposal consists of making
| > jBPM BPEL available to aid in the construction of the runtime
| > framework. The JBoss community would remain committed to
| improving the
| > BPEL runtime product and hosting it in the JBoss public repository.
| >
| > It looks like this proposal is consistent with the project goals.
| > Please let us know when you have more details on the IP stuff.
| >
| > -Alejandro
| >
| >
| > From: bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
| > [mailto:bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
| > On Behalf Of James Moody
| > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:58 PM
| > To: BPEL Designer project developer discussions.
| > Subject: Re: [bpel-dev] Offer of donation of WS-BPEL
| implementation to
| > assistproject development
| >
| >
| > Hi again Mark,
| >
| > Yes, I've contacted an Eclipse IP person, I think they'll probably
| > have some questions, which I will relay to you if I can't
| answer them.
| >
| > Re-reading your donation proposal, I just wanted to clarify one
| > aspect. Did you envision this jBPM-BPEL code "living" on Eclipse.
| > org? I.e. developed henceforth in our CVS repository? Or simply
| > available under a friendly license to aid in the development of our
| > runtime framework and reference glue code? If the former,
| that might
| > be problematic for a couple of reasons, namely that owning
| a runtime
| > is explicitly outside the scope of our project goals, as well as
| > potential license issues (there may be issues with having
| non-EPL code
| > living on Eclipse.org but again I'm not a lawyer). If the latter,
| > fantastic - this is what I had asked the IP guy about and
| hope to have
| > more information soon.
| >
| > james
| >
| >
| > bpel-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 05/09/2006 08:32:19 AM:
| >
| > > James, did you ask the "Eclipse IP person/people to take a look"?
| > >
| > > Mark.
| > >
| > >
| > > James Moody wrote:
| > > >
| > > > Hello Mark,
| > > >
| > > > This looks very interesting! >From the jBPM-BPEL
| roadmap that you
| > > > outline below, it looks like your dates will line up
| nicely with
| > > > those of this project (allowing of course for whatever
| changes are
| > > > necessary when WS-BPEL 2.0 is completed). I believe this move
| > > > will certainly benefit the community.
| > > >
| > > > I'm not a lawyer so I won't comment on the
| license-related issues,
| > > > except to say that we should get the Eclipse IP
| person/people to
| > > > take a look and confim that it makes them happy.
| > > >
| > > > Bruno: as you've taken a look at the issue of a runtime
| framework,
| > > > I'd appreciate it if you could add any comments here.
| > > >
| > > > Let's continue the discussion here of how to proceed on
| the design
| > > > of this framework and how to carve up the work among
| those involved.
| > > >
| > > > Thanks,
| > > >
| > > > james_______________________________________________
| > bpel-dev mailing list
| > bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
| > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
|
|
_______________________________________________
bpel-dev mailing list
bpel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/bpel-dev
