On 24 Sep 2010, at 17:28 , Marcel Offermans wrote: > On 24 Sep 2010, at 17:21 , Richard S. Hall wrote: > >> I think this is interesting. However, I'd like to point out that you may >> need to take care in how you position this. I believe the OSGi specs allow >> for compliant open source implementations, but it is unlikely this >> implementation will ever be fully compliant. So, you'd probably be best to >> just position it as a C-based module system that provides OSGi >> interoperability. > > Good point. I will get in touch with the OSGi Alliance to check with them how > we should call this, but I'm fine rephrasing it according to your suggestion. > In any case I will report back to the list when I get a response from them.
Following up on this, I talked to Peter Kriens of the OSGi Alliance at last week's OSGi Community Event and his response was that it's basically not allowed to use OSGi in the name of a project if it's the first word of a title, but otherwise he did not see any problems here. In fact, there was talk during that event about maybe even extending the specification to allow implementations in other languages. In the past, there has been some talk about this which resulted in a whitepaper called "Universal OSGi". In other words, as far as I can see this is not going to be a problem. Greetings, Marcel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
