JBoss: Sun Needs Us
Subject:   Edited after the fact
Date:   2002-04-14 18:59:09
From:   tom_1
Response to: Edited after the fact

> How about providing one single shred of evidence that it is the case that
> JBoss has been rejected by Sun for J2EE certification.

I told you before, I will tell you again: go find out why Lutris was unable to get a J2EE certification for their Open Source app server. They really really wanted to get certified. They couldn't. Guess why? The same reason applies to JBoss.

> Please, request one single document from the JBoss group that says
> EXPLICITLY that they were rejected because they are open source.

I went to the JBossOne conference and listened to Mr. Larry Rosen, the lawyer for Open Source Initiative explain this issue. Apparently you weren't there (which explains why you keep making up the fantasy claims). As was told by Mr. Rosen, The JBoss Group has contacted Sun several times and asked what they need to do to get certified. Sun has so far decided to ignore them, and not provide any answer whatsoever.

Now you may be able to twist this in your tiny little brain into a conspiracy run by Mr. Fleury and Rosen to fool the Open Source community and the audience present at JBossOne. Maybe Marc Fleury just paid Larry Rosen big bucks to lie in front of everyone... however, I don't believe he did. Looking at Mr. Rosen's track record and the work he has done for the Open Source community, I doubt he has any reason or motivation to do so.

And no, I did not videotape his speech for your sorry ass.

> It's my opinion that Marc _is_ being dishonest and playing on
> altruistic sympathies of developers blah blah blah

Well, it looks like the core developers are rather happy with the way he is running things. And I believe it is because the license is LGPL. No matter how dishonest Mr. Fleury decides to be, the code belongs to the developers and to the community.

By the way, Matt, did you go and read the LGPL license yet? Can you grok it? Or is it just too much for you?

> I've been following JBoss for a while now, but it sounds like you haven't.

yah right

you're a fucking moron

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 7 of 7.

  • OK Tom
    2002-04-15 13:15:28  mdubord [View]

    Since you're not playing nice anymore, but have resorted to hyperbole, foul language and general obtuseness, I'm going to end the conversation (at least my part in it). You can keep chattering into the void if you like.

    You're entirely wrong about Lutris. Read Fleury's posts about it on And also, Lutris proves the point that you can recall a product from LGPL. So, Lutris is a bad example for you because they prove both my points.

    I didn't get a chance to go to the JBossOne conference. I am however exceedingly happy that you are convinced of Marc Fleury's and his lawyer's integrity. This is a relief to my mind as I'm sure it is to developers the world over. I know that many people in the OpenSource community will breathlessly await your next response, and they are monitoring this thread for your insider info.

    As for me, Adieu, irrelevant little man. I'm sure you will die a happy death if you can get off one more profanity laced tirade, so here's your opportunity. I'm stepping off the stage for you, take it away Tom....
    • OK Tom
      2002-04-15 23:43:12  tom_1 [View]

      > You're entirely wrong about Lutris.


      Am I, now?

      Why don't you go and ask the Lutris folk about that?
      > Read Fleury's posts about it on

      I don't need to read Marc Fleury's posts about Lutris. I can go to Lutris Enhydra website and read about it from the people behind the Enterprise Enhydra product.

      > Lutris proves the point that you can recall a product from LGPL.

      Lutris code never was LGPL, you dumbass.

      In fact, they never released the source. Because you *cannot* release source if you want a certification from Sun. Get it yet, Matt? They wanted to release Open Source, but couldn't, because Sun refuses to certify Open Source J2EE app servers.

      > Lutris is a bad example for you because they prove both my points.

      uh huh, you got me beat, brainiac

      • Tom=misinformation (not to mention rudeness)
        2002-04-17 14:59:38  mdubord [View]

        I will have to retract my previous comment about removing myself from the conversation. I did read the LGPL Tom, and you are seriously mistaken if you think that license means that the originator (copyright holder) cannot close the source. The LGPL is a license to distribute source code to an end user (who will probably also happen to be a developer):

        0. This License Agreement applies to any software library or other program which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder or other authorized party saying it may be distributed under the terms of this Lesser General Public License (also called "this License"). Each licensee is addressed as "you".

        It says nothing (I challenge you to produce a quote from the license) about the copyright holders rights to the source, which under US and internation law are, I imagine, that s/he can do what s/he damn well pleases with it. Of course, you are probably being intentionally obtuse in thinking that I mean that Marc Fleury can run around and tell everyone to stop using the previously downloaded copies of JBoss. I mean that JBoss group as a copyright holder can close source at any time. This is what Lutris did. I know that you are too busy being belligerent to get the facts straight, but I want to make sure that anyone who reads this thread to understand that you are incorrect.

        Also, take 5 minutes and read the quote on JBoss:

        "First and most important, JBoss continues to be distributed through the website. JBoss remains a highly successful, fully featured and cost-effective J2EE server solution available for free download under the LGPL license.

        Lutris' decision to close its source seems clearly driven by its own business considerations and not by Sun."

        I'm not making this stuff up.

        Since you like to pick and choose what you respond to in my posts, please address this one particular point:

        JBoss says Lutris is lying and that Lutris closing its source had to do with business, not because Sun had a problem with Open Source. Then JBoss comes along and says that Sun won't give them a license because they're Open Source -- the same thing they accused Lutris of saying. And yet, they still keep this statement on their website. Now, who's lying and who's telling the truth?

        Lutris was IN FACT open source. JBoss uses portions of it (this is what used to appear in the message output when you start JBoss). Enhydra was based on JOnAS, which is Open Source. Don't believe me? Check out Richard Monson Haefel's EJB book from O'Reilly, second edition. It's right there in the back.

        In any case, I really have been following this a long time Tom, and I really am paying close attention to what is going on in the industry. Lastly, I'm going to challenge you to do something which may be a bit difficult, but I'd like you to try to think critically about this for a second: show me in the article above where JBoss group gives any direct evidence (the quote from the lady at Sun is vague) that they were denied. I don't need to you scan anything, just show me a statement made by JBoss where they say the were explicitly denied because they were Open Source. Sun says no such thing. They talk about diluting the brand. This means they don't just want to hand out for free their certification (which means nothing incidentally). I don't blame them. It's a revenue stream for a product they're giving away for free (Java VM).

        It has been pointed out to me by some of my friends that your comments are curiously defensive for someone with no ties to the JBoss group. Would you mind clarifying who you are, and what your relation to (and interest in) the JBoss group is? Thanks a bunch good buddy. You're worth a million laughs.
        • Tom=misinformation (not to mention rudeness)
          2002-04-17 21:10:46  tom_1 [View]

          > I mean that JBoss group as a copyright holder can close source at any time.

          And I keep telling you JBoss Group does not own the copyright to the code. You seem to be having trouble grasping this simple fact. The developers each own copyright to their respective code. When you contribute code to JBoss, you are not asked to give up your copyright.

          Marc Fleury owns the trademark to the JBoss brand. Trademark is not copyright.
          > Lutris was IN FACT open source.

          Lutris makes (made?) many products. Enterprise Enhydra was their planned J2EE offering. It was never released under an Open Source license, and the reason given by the Lutris representatives on articles and forum postings is because Sun does not allow J2EE certified vendors to distribute the source code under an Open Source license. These statements are easy to find on the web. Even by you, Matt.

          > Enhydra was based on JOnAS, which is Open Source.

          Yes it is. And as far as I understand, Lutris' plan was to base their J2EE product (Enterprise Enhydra) on JOnAS EJB container. Nothing mysterious about that. However, JOnAS is not certified by Sun, and according to Lutris representatives they were unable to negotiate a license with Sun that would allow them to certify an Open Source J2EE application server.

          For someone claiming to follow the industry closely, you sure do spout alot of bullshit without bothering to check even the basic facts.
          • Tom=misinformation (not to mention rudeness)
            2002-04-18 12:59:26  mdubord [View]

            Still no clarification on who you are and what your relation to JBoss group is, though your bombast is toned down a little.

            And you are still not reading the posts by JBoss group about Lutris. Comment on that please. And please post quotes that back up your statements.

            • Tom=misinformation (not to mention rudeness)
              2002-04-18 18:16:30  tom_1 [View]

              do a fucking web search, you moron

              • Tom=misinformation (not to mention rudeness)
                2002-04-19 07:53:04  mdubord [View]

                OK Tom, it's becoming a little suspicious and appears that you have something to hide. You are repeatedly ignoring my requests for you to clarify your relation to the group.

                I know it's probably difficult for you to read a sentence from beginning to end, but try this one: