Slashdot Mirror
JBoss Queries Apache Geronimo Code Similarity
Kanagawa writes "This morning, Jim Jagielski, Exec. V.P. and Secretary of the Apache Software Foundation, announced on the geronimo-dev mailing list that 'the ASF received a letter from JBoss's lawyers regarding... the similarity of code between [J2EE implementation] Geronimo and JBoss.' The letter
is available in PDF. According to the letter, similarities were noticed back in July, and haven't been fixed."
...see this post to TheServerSide. A lot of these look like common design patterns and standard Java/J2EE naming conventions.
You can also see Jim Jagielski's response to some questions here about this issue. Sounds pretty reasonable.
The Army reading list
If they both used the J2EE Reference Implementation wouldn't the code be similar? I fail to see how this is an issue.
"Good programmer's copy, great programmer's steal!!"
meh.. I got nothing.
I'm not into this case, but at a first glance it seem to me that Geronimo really is just what JBoss is, right ? - So what's the point in remaking it? JBoss is already free? (LGPL!)
henc
Call out the lawyers!
I mean, who couldn't see this coming, after the issues this summer?
At least SCO had some verbatim (albeit legitimate) copying that they could show. This stuff isn't even exact, and in most cases it appears methods of operation have changed, variable names and defines have changed.
I call bullshit.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Ummm...no.
Apache is Open Source. That means it's free for all to examine. It's one thing to be caught with your hand in the cookie jar, but it's quite another to slowly open the jar and reach inside while in direct eye contact with your mother. I'm quite sure this is unintentional. See the previous comment for a rebuttal.
I think its mighty decent of them to 'query' the project and give them some time to get things worked out; they could have just sued. Of course, Apache has practically no money so that would be like squeezing blood out of a potato. But some other companies (cough) SCO (cough) might not take the time or the effort to avoid a chance to make some money.
The first exhibit seems to be originally derived from:
/ ex amples/customLevel/XLevel.java
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/jakarta-log4j
which is apache licensed in the first place.
I'm no expert coder, but these don't look the same to me. There are similarities, but one would presume they are doing the similar things.
One of the functions is to convert an integer to a level. How many different ways could you do actually do this? Another function converts a string.
If you assign a class to write functions that would change variable types. All 30 people will come up with different code, but the code is likely to look very similar - especially if you're encouraging them to use proper function/variable naming and comments.
Kudos to JBoss for posting the code, but I don't see much here to be suing over.
"I WROTE THESE IN JBOSS, THEY ARE NON_GENERIC. THERE IS NO LOGICAL WAY SOMEONE TO COME UP WITH THE 3 SAME MAPS, AND WITH THE 3 SAME NAMES."
Damn, this guy must think he is God's gift to programming!
I can't help it that there are so many caps, that is how he typed it. Are you happy not post filter?
Which one is SCO and which is IBM, I'm a little slow on this stuff.
-Tim Louden
Hmm.. I'm pretty sure I was joking. Maybe I should add a da dum tsch. thing to the end.
Geronimo has requested that all developers confirm that either a) they didn't just submit JBoss code or b) they had the right as the original creators of the JBoss code section to also submit it to Geronimo.
No FUD. No hyperbole in extremis. No crazed threats. Oh, wait: No SCO. Of course. What a breath of fresh air.
Apparently, someone has not considered the differences between the various forms of open source.
Actually, you are, in a way, bringing up an interesting point - the number of Slashdot readers commenting on articles before taking their precious time to read enough of it to make their postings meaningful.
... ah, this is Slashdot. Nevermind.
:)
Of course, there are always things that can be said without actually understanding exactly what the article is about, but it is always a good idea to read up, and get a good impression from which to base your comments on, before
The best they can hope for is it was copied from a common source or contributed by the same copyright holder.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Damn, must make more GTK/Gnome clocks.
Bye!!!!
Check out the source code on page 8. Since when is the copyright symbol allowable in Java syntax?
In the example on page 8 of the letter you can see they are BOTH attempting to copyright the freaking SWITCH construct!
--
This post (c) 2003, Knights who say Ni, LTD.
-- This post (c) 2003, Knights who say Ni, LTD.
A letter like that is really all everyone has been asking for from SCO. JBoss is doing this to protect their code. It makes you wonder why SCO hasn't done the same already. Unless of course their actions are not at all about protecting their source code and patents. Reminds of that bible story where King Solomon must decide a dispute over a newborn child. JBoss reacted in the interests of protecting their code, SCO has not. From this simple story, we see whose intentions are what they claim to be, and whose are not.
/.ers were on the money.
On a side note, SCO's recent behavior has made it clear as to who the puppetmaster of this debacle really is:
Here are two quotes from the Computer Business Review:
"SCO would probably provide customers with financial incentives and discounts to migrate to SCO Unix, other vendors' Unix, and what he referred to as 'other proprietary operating systems' but probably Windows."
"'We are offering a migration path to other operating systems that have a stronger IP basis than Linux,' the spokesperson said. Incentives will be offered 'in the coming months.'"
If that move doesn't reveal the puppetmaster, nothing will.
I sincerely doubted Microsoft's involvement for a while, this time though, the paranoid
For the next two months, JBoss will license portions of its code to Geronimo's developers and users for half off, only $699!
-Adam
is exactly what SCO should be doing...
normal(adj)- people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots [DECS]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--27472110
Subject: A Letter from JBoss's lawyers
From: Jim Jagielski
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:20:41 -0500
The ASF rec'd a letter from JBoss's lawyers regarding Geronimo
and the similarity of code between Geronimo and JBoss. They
cite a few "examples" but mention that:
1. That it strongly appears that code was
simply copied over
2. That we are violating (L)GPL.
I would like to place a copy of the letter on the Geronimo
site, but need some direction on doing that... Except
for HTTP releases and some minor things, I don't touch the
website build system.
In any case, this a CALL for ALL Geronimo developers
to ensure that any code is not copied from JBoss.
Recall, also, that if someone is the original
author of the code and donated that code to JBoss,
they can *still* donate the original code to the
ASF (unless they signed some sort of exclusivity
agreement). Original authors maintain ownership, and other project maintainers are free to have one-night-stands with hemos.
I'm attaching the PDF. When people reply, PLEASE
be sure to strip out the pics of RMS and taco!
It does sound like there were a few particular instances where a class' design and the set of methods in the class were directly patterned on the JBoss design - not necessarily copied line-by-line, but the solution to a fundamental part of the J2EE specification "problem" was ripped from JBoss and modified to suit the code needs of Geronimo. Whether this is violation of copyright or not is a tough question. Copyright doesn't protect a design pattern, a solution to a problem, the logical organization of a set of objects, or an algorithm. Proving that somebody actually violated copyright in this case seems rather hard to me - though perhaps a bit of credit to the JBoss folks for their thoughts and design work is in order.
See, to do a joke, you do not just need to think about it. People do not read your thoughts. So you have to give a clue away. Like if I say: "Today the weather is nice", no one will have a clue I'm joking and it is raining outside, because they don't even know where I am. So it is not funny.
However, if I say "Today the weather is nice, looks like I could go windsurfing on the highway", then they know I am joking. Even if the joke is awful.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
The first example in the letter is
org.jboss.logging.XLevel vs. org.apache.geronimo.core.log.XLevel
Both seem to be copied from log4j's examples.customLevel.XLevel
However, there are much more substantial allegations made here
more about me
At what level though do you say that source was copied? Obviously the code isn't a 100% match, and for each problem a coder faces there is a shortest distance/most efficient solution, what's not to say that two developers wouldn't reach similar conclusions? Seeing as some of the exhibits were based around logging which is a very common task which I'd figure that a large portion of projects tackle the problem in the same fashion, I fail to see you could point out that someone had copied the solution if it was the best answer and other people could arrive at the same conclusion.
If it was a line for line copy then I can see it being different, but IMHO I think there are sufficient difference between the two portions of code. Personally I think if JBoss doesn't have better things to do with it's time and money it should slash the cost of its ridiculously expensive (and pathetic) documentation and spend some time improving it instead!
How could this be avoided? Both are implemented against the same guidelines, using the same suggested/implied patterns. I guess it's just a matter of who did it first a this point. Java's syntax does not allow for (thankfully) a million different ways of expressing the same idea (at the lanuage level anyway). Given the pervasiveness of design patterns, it's not unlikely that large pieces of architecture will be functionally and syntactically similar. And given that both are open source software, what are the chances that one developer happened to peek at the other's code for a little insight? Chances are pretty good. Once you see a solution or pattern/class design that works nicely, it's hard not to follow the idea.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Hmm.. I don't get it.
Maybe this is just an artefact of the way these program samples were generated, but it's pretty obvious that the author's name in the 'author' comment at the foot of the left-hand column on page seven (of the pdf of the original complaint letter) is in a completely different font to that of the rest of the code on that page: check out for instance the 'g' character.
Umm... aren't you supposed to sue for gobs of money before you show the infringements? Don't they know how our legal system works?!
Or you could say something like "Today the weather is nice LOLOLOL ;-)"
It was mangnanimous of JBoss to point out the copying issue and gave Apache a chance to fix the problem.
I suggest Apache not complain and accept this goodwill gesture on the part of JBoss.
I had never heard of Geronimo before, so I did the lemming thing and clicked on the link in the article and got the message in the subject. Now I'm not sure about you, but is it telling me that I should revisit their website after I feel relieved by urinating?
Matt
I don't get it
Then please, for the sake of everyone, don't try any jokes anymore on slashdot.
The JBoss code and the Apache code both appear to be copied from an example that was originally created by Apache. Exibit A and B are both logging classes, both use Log4J (Apache's logging utility) and can be expected to be similar. Exibit C looks Almost identical, but not entirely. The similarities are so trivial, Apache is bound to make a few quick changes and be done with this thing before it starts. What sillyness.
TallGreen CMS hosting
Did anyone not see this coming? And if you didn't here's why you should have:
Mark Fleury's original response to Apache Geronimo
As our customers know, we are a business, a serious one and we seriously believe in and defend "professional open source". That includes legal protection of IP. Make no mistakes, JBoss will AGGRESIVELY defend its copyright and LGPL license.
And from the Elba website
Think of Elba as a latticework for Geronimo--and as a shield to buffer the Geronimo codebase and CVS repository from any LGPL code. As Geronimo is built, its code will replace the code from Elba, bit by bit until there's nothing left in Elba at all. At that time, Elba will cease to exist and only Geronimo will remain; we'll have a big party and you're all invited.
So if Geronimo is being developed as outlined at the Elba website then they'd have to have the exact same method signatures....
My Hello World is 512 bytes. But it's also a valid Fat12 boot sector, Fat12 file reader, and Pmode routine.
Or you could say something like "Today the weather is nice LOLOLOL ;-)"
Yes, that would work too, even though it doesn't give a clue as why this is funny. Of course, with the weather example, it is pretty obvious, but in a more general case, you might ensure first that your audience has a clue about the context that makes the joke actually funny.
This is a serious matter, not something you should take lightly.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Which brings up an important question: can code be re-licensed by people other than the authors when the original license was less restrictive?
Example: Alice in Wonderland is in the public domain. Peter Zelchenko made an ebook out of it with nice typography and claims copyright on the derived work. Can I cut the text & paste it into a document of mine?
Example: the Almquist Shell (ash) seems to have been a contribution to some form of BSD Unix. It's also in busybox with a GPL at the top and a Berkeley license at the bottom.
What if Kenneth Almquist doesn't like the GPL and wants his code to be distributed that way? The BSD license pretty much says he's already given up the right to say anything, but using ash in a closed source project now gives me a funny feeling:
1) I'm worried that someone will claim ash is GPL and I must release the source. The later license doesn't affect earlier versions.
2) I have a copy of busybox source in my account. I've only looked at the docs & looked at the sources enough to figure out where they originally came from, but if there are bug fixes in the GPL'd code, they'd better not be in my ash, at least in the same form.
One more twist: the ash I have is licensed under the "Almquist Public License" which is BSD-like. The copyright message in the busybox version suggests that K.A. contributed it to Berkeley and the license for that *is* the BSD license.
If I want a later version than my 1989 one, I run the risk of hitting the part of the timeline where GPL contributions began.
-1 Flamebait? C'mon, that was pretty amusing for the 2nd post on the board, to immediately have made a connection between the apache/jboss case and the sco/linux case like that. You mods are somethin' else. That should be rated +2 funny, if not higher.
Looking at the code as a programmer, some things stand out:
- The "copying" JBoss claims doesn't fit. There's differences in braces, keywords and other things that wouldn't be accounted for by automatic reformatting of code. I can't see a programm who's copying code directly going back in and doing that kind of editing. I'd expect braces to be maintained, for example, yet in several places they aren't.
- The similar names are obvious names for types, variables and functions. Given the same spec to start from, without having seen the JBoss code at all, I'd pick the same names.
- The places they cite as having code-structure similarity are very simple. Frankly, it looks to me like there's only one sane way to write that code.
It can't hurt to do a check, but I suspect JBoss is seeing copying where there's just only one obvious way to do something and most programmers, working independently, will make basically the same set of choices for that code.#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
cout << "Hello world, sombebody sue me for stealing code!" << "\n";
return 0;
};
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
Okay, so let's say there's a hypothetical situation where two products have a suspicious amount of similar code, such that it's extremely likely that one was copied from the other. The question I have, is how do you prove which was the copier and which was the original?
Who's to say Jboss didn't copy Geronimo, (or SCO didn't copy Linux, if they ever get around to producing any actual examples of similar code.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
A copyright claim against open sores software? Wow!
No, I think they're just taking a leaf out of SCO's (patented) book
Sheesh. Nobody's filed a lawsuit. Relax.
Two open source projects quibiling over licences instead of producing software, and the project with the less restrictive licence needing to "re-invent the wheel."
What is the reason in "redesigning" an open source project under a different license? Is JBoss so poorly written that it can't be the base of another LGPL project? Is the Apache license so much better for open source projects that it needs to be done?
In the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" There sould be no issue here.
(except maybe that "Free, as in freedom" doesn't mean what it should)
I am living proof of the Peter Principle
The lawyers probably saw the copyright symbol on both sides of the code, and decided that it was obviously a violation of copyright!
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
And so began the Clone Wars...
Perhaps there is more that is stronger evidence, but this is seriously unconvincing.
Given the similarities between this and the SCO, Linux claims, is it possible that this could be a "ploy" by the JBoss people to establish a public precedent for the GPL?
I mean, if the public see Apache and JBoss figuring it out, could the outcry against SCO and their detrimental case against Linux be enough to quash it?
After reading the letter, and looking through the exhibits it is evident that this particular Apache project has a systemic problem. In reading much of the preceding posts it would appear that many people equate this letter with the action taken by SCO, and are thus opposed to granting it any merit. On the contary, this is far from the opaque stance taken by the aforementioned SCO. The JBoss Group has shown specific instances of infringement, whereas SCO has not.
What many do not seem to understand, is that this specific instance is exactly the kind of enforcement, of open source licenses, we should be encouraging! If we are to take them at face value, the JBoss Group is merely trying to maintain the integrity of the intellectual property rights of its contributors. I see no reason to demonish them for that! Futhermore, it should also be noted they have not instigated or blatantly threatened legal action, this is also to their credit.
WHAT YOU SAY!! this so ST00P1D!!!!
SHUT UP!!!
This is probably not a very popular point of view, but it seems to me that if these groups really had altruistic intentions they would use a license that allows and encourages copying of each other's code, like Public Domain. These restrictive licenses seem awfully stingy. What are they so worried about? That IBM will copy their code? So what if they do? Source code wants to be shared, and restrictive licenses and lawsuits are a long way from sharing.
I support the GPL, I've released code under it. And I have nothing against the Apache project, I like a lot of their projects. I'm just trying to understand what the antagonism is about.
This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
se my post on how Apache missunderstands article 0 of the LGPL..
a ch e_foundation_incorrect
folks if the go throguh with code copying by code authors othe4r than through the authorized party in this case JBoss they are in violatin..thus the reason for the letter from JBoss..
http://www.jroller.com/page/shareme/20031110#ap
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Secondly, that's how you are supposed to specify the padding for cells in an HTML table.
Were. Apparently, new tools that output HTML aren't supposed to output presentational attributes; they're supposed to output equivalent CSS instead.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Simone Bordet, David Blevins, David Jencks, Dain Sundstrom, Greg Wilkins, Bruce Snyder, Jan Bartel, Jeremy Boynes , James Strachan, Jules Golsnell, Richard Monson-Haefel and Jason Dillon.
Almost ALL of the Geronimo developers with commit rights have also worked on the same JBoss code base. Thats too many developers in common to provide a fresh perspective nessary to create a non-derivative clone.
You can't copyright ideas, and you can't prevent people from seeing your open source ideas. Unless you can show it is the exact same code that was simply processed, what's the problem? If your 15 minutes worth of code is so important to your business plan, maybe you should go closed source.
thanx! :-)
I'm confused, whose supposed to be the bad guy here? I'm too lazy to decide for myself.
I don't claim to know the origins of either sides code. I don't even use said software(s), but I do code Java. Reading the trails from theserverside.com gets me thinking some people are just jumping to protect to quickly. The code does look similar. Java isn't perl as there isn't very many ways to do something. But there are a fair number of ways of "expressing" that something.
I hope those involved don't flip out. There doesn't appear to be much that is similar so re-wroking it should be trivial then they can move on.
Found this on TSS. Looks pretty crazy that a Geronimo developer admits in a CVS comment that it is derived code.
....". This file was moved to and renamed to the Geronimo project. As I believe in the integrity of the LGPL, I was greatly disturbed by this.
:
o ni mo/modules/core/src/java/org/apache/geronimo/ejb/S ynchronizationRegistry.java?rev=1.1&content-type=t ext/vnd.viewcvs-markup
* /j boss/jboss/src/main/org/jboss/ejb/entity/Attic/Ent ityInvocationRegistry.java?content-type=text%2Fpla in&rev=1.1
N am e=geronimo-dev@incubator.apache.org&msgId=9981 28
...."
:
"As an open source developer I choose to submit my code under LGPL because it ensures me that this code will remain open source, yet the license is flexible enough to allow for embedding. When I first became aware of Geronimo, I took a look through the codebase just for kicks and was deeply concerned that some of my code was derived from or distributed under the ASL license.
As an example, below is a comment from the JBoss CVS from Dain Sundstrom. Dain contributed EntityInvocationRegistry to the JBoss project back in March of 2003. He clearly states in his commit message to the JBoss CVS that this file is a derivative of certain files that I wrote "This functionality was merged from
Date : 2003/3/23 4:28:42
Author : 'dsundstrom'
State : 'Exp'
Lines : +0 0
Description
Tracks the entities and contexts associated with a transaction.This
functionality was merged from GlobalTxMap, TxEntityMap, and
EntitySynchronizationInterceptor.
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/incubator-ger
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout
Add to this is comments on the Geronimo mail list stating that they are taking JBoss code concerned me even more. Here's a comment from David Blevins:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?list
And Elba == JBoss 3.2.
"We're taking the Elba/OpenEJB JAAS code, merging it together
So I spent an hour or two looking through the Geronimo codebase back in August of this year....Here are some of my findings.....
Go to theserverside.com to see more.
I looked at the code and from what I can see, the first two are logging related, which do seem different than typical use pattern of Log4J. The last one has similar naming conventions, but that is because they are EJB related terms. Things like Remote, local, home and localhome are standard terms. the logging specific stuff are different, but by no means is it critical or hard to replace.
The code looks similar. So what.
Thery're going after the same problem. After a while, all the solutions are going to look the same. A lot of people have written similar code (abstraction on top of log4j, etc.). I've copied naming conventions & idioms from stuff I read in the Jakarta Commons source. Is that illegal?
If they're so bent on protecting this stuff, they should file a patent. Drumroll...snare. OK, that was sarcasm.
More seriously, I think the JBoss project needs a good dose of modesty. They have some great stuff, but so do other people. The Apache Foundation has done a lot for the community, they should cut these guys a break. They should be flattered the the Apache guys are imitating what they're doing.
there's no place like ~
I hope everyone realizes that NOBODY is going to really use JBoss or Geronimo as long as CIO's see letters flying around wonderiong about code authenticity.
Donating your time to a software project that makes you no money really is dumb. It makes no sense at all. Marc F made $$ off of other peoples backs and now others are trying to make $$ off of his back.
I have no sympathy for any of you folks.
I hope the fight drags on for years.
to apache projects and other OSS projects, this in no way turns me away from contributing. If anything, it shows how well open licenses work. Fixing the problems are straight forward. Some of the similarities are generic, while others appear inspired. I would say, fix it and get back to work.
If you've been using a program for along time, and you decide to go off, and start some competition, you tend to implement similar features. or you wouldn't be in the same market. You can name variables and function names whatever you want, even if its the same function name for ease of use/understanding/coding.. i dont think its stealing intellectual property if you understand the code and actually write it freehand....
LGPL code can be relicensed under any license by the owner (copyright holder) at any time. If the person originally wrote the code and did not give up their copyright, they can do whatever they want with it (but not with anyone else's code). The question is what code was "similar" and who is the original author and/or copyright holder.
...the ASF transmitted a letter to JBoss's lawyers regarding the similarity between a horse's ass and most attorneys.
Who is John Galt?
A) Both systems calling into the same API (IBM's log4j), which has a fixed interface, so of course the code is going to look similar
and..
B) Both systems implementing the same API, namely J2EE, which also has a fixed interface with well known conventions.
This is *insane*. By the same logic, and with a much more convincing looking 'code-theft' letter from an attorney, Microsoft could shut down both Mono and PortableNET in a heartbeat, saying that they have stolen code from Rotor. The fact that Microsoft hasn't and JBoss has says a lot about JBoss, and the fact that just because code is Open Source and the code works really well doesn't mean the people who own the code aren't power-mad cocksuckers.
Actually, I don't believe you can do that. When using public domain music or books, one must work from urtext. The urtext is the work that originally went into the public domain. It is the urtext that cannot have ownership claimed over it. A cleaned up version of the urtext would be a derived work and the editor can indeed claim copyright over his version.
Music publishing companies are rabid on the subject. They've been known to change a few notes randomly in their printings of things like old classical works to identify their versions if someone else distributes copies. If you want public domain Mozart, you either have to work from the urtext yourself or a liberally licensed version of it.
Think about this way. Imagine all the work it would take to clean up and digitize an old 1920s film. A few will do it for love and others will only do it for money. I would even say charging is reasonable as long as the first editor to do it doesn't prevent anyone else from accessing the original PD work.
This was one of the more bogus arguments for copyright extension. "No one will have any incentive to rescue deteriorating films and music." It's crap. Remastered media is a derived work and subject to copyright.
I haven't read any of the Geronimo stuff in months, so this is all just impressions from the back of my mind. Can someone knowledgeable please clarify? I'm under the impression that the ASF has a strong working relationship with Sun, and has the intent of certifying Geronimo once it is complete. I think JBoss is not certified for cost reasons. I could be completely mistaken, but I remember hearing something about Sun agreeing to waive the certification fee for the ASF.
It is my opinion that, for open source organizations, the primary benefit of copyright is to prevent a third party from taking code, making it closed, and profitting from it. It's SOLE purpose should be to defend against capitalistic exploitation. Unless the JBoss people can convince me that Apache is maliciously and willfully trying to damage their project, I will count them among the SCO-like hordes.
One open project threatening another? The whole thing makes me sick. Shame on JBoss.
And yes, if it were my code, and another open project took it, I wouldn't care. No really, I WOULD NOT CARE. I thought this was about scratching the itch, not money, not ego, not fame or fortune.
Am I the only one that finds it amusing that they're complaining that similarities haven't been "fixed"?
What's next?... The patent for Makefile is on the horizon. Not like that's ever been copied...
-- Rob
import org.apache.log4j.helpers.PatternConverter
import org.apache.log4j.helpers.PatternParser.
Yup. It looks like copying OK, JBoss has been copying the Apache log4j code.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Posted By: Jim Jagielski on November 10, 2003 @ 03:49 PM in response to Message #101148.
Just a short note: It is, and has always been, the stated baseline of Geronimo that it not contain any (L)GPL code, whether JBoss derived (in legally specified copyright sense) or not. It's not for any political reasons (and I'm glad to see that this is not degrading into such a forum) but simply because of the letter and spirit of the Apache License. It should also be noted that Geronimo itself is an "project in incubation" within the ASF. It is not (yet) a formal, official ASF project (or subproject under one of the other top level ASF projects). If there is any (L)GPL code within Geronimo, or code that is derived from (L)GPL code (in the legal sense), it will be stripped and replaced. That's just the way it is and it's the way the ASF has always operated.
Also, it should be noted that some exhibits referred to are no longer applicable. For example, Geronimo's Invocation class was entirely rewritten from what was noted in the letter. In other cases, the similarities are due to the fact that they are simple (and trivial) extensions. With XLevel, org.apache.log4j.Level is itself extended, which imposes and provides some of the common structure and names. It has also been noted that for PatternParser, the similarities come from the fact that both code bases implement "nested diagnostic contexts" as described by Neil Harrison in "Patterns for Logging Diagnostic Messages", which can be found in the book "Pattern Languages of Program Design 3", published in 1997 by Addison-Wesley (ISBN: 0201310112). Apache Log4J implements this class in org.apache.log4j.NDC. This class describes how it is to be used, including the use of a "distinctive stamp."
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Don't worry, SCO will lay claim to it all tomorrow. They already have, you know.
In the mean time, you are right, people who don't smoke crack will figure the issue out.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What cellpadding? What on earth are you talking about?
There's no reference to CELLPADDING in the Geronimo source in the PDF, only in the JBoss source. And anyway, that's in the embedded API documentation - JavaDoc - it's not a varable name at all.
And, it's CELLPADDING because they're embedding HTML into the source - so it's got to be the HTML spec. (You do know what HTML is, right?)
Secondly, you're factually wrong - the class names are different - it's "ThreadNDCConverter" in JBoss and "NamedNDCConverter" in Geronimo.
You do realise the source code in the PDF is side by side? You're supposed to be comparing the left column against the right?
(As proof that I'm not misintepreting the PDF, if you actually pull the source you'll see that that is not present in the Apache code
cvs checkout from the attic
)
Let's not forget--most of the code committer types in Geronimo actually worked for JBoss, actually crawled pubs with and took money from these people. Some for many years. If they created the files for JBoss, there's no foul.
After all. Unlike your soul, you can't very easily sell someone your copyright authority...just a license to use your copyrighted material (at least that's the rumour. you can still sell your soul for a dimebag if you know where to look, but nobody pays for software development anymore)
Oh, yes. And the difference between the ASF and JBoss is that at JBoss you have to kiss Marc Fleury's ass, and in the ASF you have to kiss the ass of everyone in your PMC, everyone on the board of directors and all the committers. It's like joining les Chevaliers du Temple.
(Where's my Kundalani?)
-=ST=-
I know this is an aside, but it frustrates me that so many people mistake camelCase for PascalCase. I'm not saying you're one of these people, but since I've got a new box that's fresh out of soap...
Very truly yours in cowardice,
AC
Does anyone actually use this shit? PHP seems to be, by far, more popular, and ASP.NET seems to be a lot easier than J2EE if anyone would actually want something more than PHP can deliver. Except, of course, for those who program in emacs. I know they exist but in dwindling numbers, like the cute Caribou. Or the wild buffalo. For the programmers out there who are out of work, looks like there is a promising career in law.
and if so, almost all of that code is dealing with the logging levels of log4j.
I do realize the difference in both their licenses, but it certainly seems ironic to me that jboss is using an apache project and then complaining that apache (geronimo) is using the same package in almost the same way!
I haven't used log4j in sometime but my recollection is that there are 6 standard levels for logging. This appears like they are both adding an extra level (7) called TRACE that is below the DEBUG level. How many possible, different ways could you do that anyhow?
Yet another "Hey! Their code ALSO starts with #include "?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
You could, however, compare the two versions and see why and how the bug fixes are carried out. The implementation of the bug fix may be copyrighted, but the identification of a bug's location and cause is an idea, which is not covered by copyright.
read the PDF. You'll expect everyone to read the whole article next!
While I'm sure the issues in this case can and will be resolved, I still find the whole thing rather shocking. In a world where it's rapidly becoming illegal to be creative or productive rather than just a slaving machine, I thought the Open Source movement were the good guys.
But now it seems that they might end up being even worse than the patent sharks. Seems like what JBoss is doing is just like patenting, without the hassles of patenting. Also what is the point of Open Source, if I am not allowed to learn from it? It's becoming increasingly difficult to sort out what I am allowed to do and think, without infringing upon somebodies copyright. So the more code I look at, the more energy I have to put into avoiding to make my code look the same. This is really not what makes coding fun for me.
I think this is exactly the reason why Marc Fleury once stated in an interview that he thinks that it would have been better NOT to convert from GPL to LGPL in early days.
;-)
No one understood that at the time of the interview. Now we know why.
MarcF might be not your best friend. But he for sure has led JBoss to where it is right now. With a lot of help from Rickard and Scott and so many others of course
There's no protection in copyright law for copying ideas, style and design (this is why we have patent and design protection). There's nothing to stop one person reading a copyright protected work, and extracting basic ideas, style, themes, etc and using that in their own work.
So, there's nothing that can stop one programmer from looking at one set of code, and then walking away and producing an independent version of similar design, but different expression. This could mean that there are similar functions and mechanisms, but looking at the detail it would be obvious that they might be similar, but are not exact copies.
There's a difference here between commercial strategy of clean-room software development. In clean-room approach, what you're getting around is not just copyright, but issues of commercial confidentiality and so on. Confidentiality is not a problem with open source software.
...from looking at the code....
It does appear that some code has been borrowed. Variable name after variable name and interface after interface seem to be an exact match.
Now then, that doesn't say which direction the code came from or even address if there are design/specification issues which dictated/influenced the variable names or the interface. Variables like, "defaultValue", "sysLogEquiv", etc., constants and/or enumeration names, all seem to support that the code has been borrowed/stolen.
Now then, I am not a Java coder, so, I can't speak to cultreal specifics which may explain some of these. What I mean by this, it is not uncommon for one language to adopt standard variable names and common and/or defacto standard ways of approaching or doing things. This may explain some, much, or even all of these, especially if they both borrow idioms from defacto java code and interfaces. Just the same, why are both using "defaultValue" versus "defVal" or "default" or "dv" or whatever. What about "sysLogEquiv"? Why isn't one something like, "sysLog", "sysLogLevel", "sysLogString", "sysLogStr", "level", and so on. The last three seem much more likely that one would of used, if it's not copied. The fact that they are the same on this one seems VERY suspect. Is there a "java culture" reason why they would both use "Equiv"?? If the answer is, "no", I think I have to agree that a seriously big, red flag just shot up the pole.
j3110 wrote "I think it's fair game to steal design from any unpatented source. Design is not concrete enough that copying it would make a working product." regarding the differences between copyright and patents.
IANAL and to a certain extent I agree with you but I think this may fall under the definition of "derivative works".
For example, if I wrote a piece of science-fiction involving characters named Kirk, Spock and McCoy, I probably could be considered to be creating a "derivative work" of the Star Trek series, even if I had General Kirk commanding a regament of Space Troopers instead of the Enterprise.
IMHO this is where things get a bit fuzzy, when is something similar enough that it might be a derivative work? What if I only had Leutenant Spock? Perhaps that is too unusual a name, so what about McCoy, which is probably a fairly common name in some areas....
Back on topic, the character names are a good example as they correlate fairly well to variable names in programs. Plot elements might equate to funtions, etc. How many items need to be similar before there is a genetic relationship that would invoke the "derivate work" clauses of any given licence or copyright law?
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
This is what you get.
It's the job of attorneys to look for things to litigate.
If they can find something, fine. They will sue based on what they found.
If they can't find anything, then they can let their imagination runs free and _then_ manufacture conspiracies, and proceed to sue based on their conspiracies/fantacies.
It's just unfortunate, no, it's sheer PATHETIC that the computer industry is being overpowered by the attorneys.
Now instead of we let our imaginations run free and produce killeraps, we have to waste our times to play with the run-away fantacies of them attorneys.
It's just too darn pathetic.
First it's RIAA, then DCMA, then SCO, now this.
Sigh !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I think Marc Fleury is just bitter because he lost half his developers to Geronimo... They bailed a while ago.
I betcha that greed had something to do with it...
This is the problem with design patterns though, you run the risk of getting sued. Any code that does the same job as another piece of code will be very similar if both are properly designed.
Add software patents to this volatile situation and it is beginning to look like the java community will be crushed under it's own weight.
l8,
AC
Save the world... Kill a lawyer
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Apache fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Apache box (a P4 2.4 w/1024 Megs of RAM, on an Qwest OC3) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one directory on the hard drive to another user. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4/IIS 4 (On a dual T1, no less!), which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Apache box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, PHP will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even mod_perl is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Apache machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Apache box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the Apache machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 cable modem router with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 2400 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Apache is a "superior" server.
Apache addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Apache over other faster, cheaper, more stable httpd daemons.
So if I manufacture a car, can Ford, Chevrolet, etc. sue me for having an engine? Of course the two programs are going to be similar, they are trying to do the same damn thing!! Maybe it is a huge coincidence that the variables are named the same thing, I am only a novice programmer, but maybe the terms that are similar are commonly-used programming terms? Or are common to Java-related programming? This just seems like a colossal waste of time, money, and effort that could be better spent coding to see whose software is really better, instead of languishing in a courtroom, trying to litigate your competition to death.
I hate sigs.
Be careful, you can sued or arrested for saying that kind of stuff...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
I know, he really should spell "fantasies" with an "S" instead of a "C".
Follow me
See your post for how to misconstrue copyright law.
Sure that one copy is under the LGPL. But as copyright holder, I am NOT constrained by that license. I can create a BSD, public domain or even take it private.
As long as I either get copyright assignments, OR do not take contributions at all, I can do whatever I want with my code.
BWP
Yes, you probably do know him. He is probably that boy, when you were a senior in high school, which was one year ago, that inocent 14 year old geek you made to be your love slave. you told him lies to get him to suck you cock, you fucked him and he thought you loved him but you just gave him diseases. now he lies crushed, while you move on like a juggernaut to maim more lives and minds.