On 7/19/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Henri said:
This worries me - accepting an implementation whose specification does
not yet have a defined license or containing standards body. Maybe
we've done it before though.
This is not true - AMQP has a well defined license and it is posted in
the spec, and you can implement
the specification freely - without strings.
Bad wording on my part. I mean the license once it is at the standards body.
On the topic of - at which standards body it will land at, why is that
a concern, as the license of
the specification is well defined no matter where it goes
I was assuming that standard bodies dictate the license to a large
extent, and given that those have caused trouble in the past the idea
of a new project with that still undefined is a worry. The term
"standards body" is a mental flag :)
I asked Cliff as champion about this bit and he said he'd reply here
in a few hours.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
