All,
I would like to formally propose a new project for CentOS for inclusion on projects.centos.org: CentAS.
The CentAS project aims to provide a free and redistributable version of JBoss which compiles with Red Hat trademark guidelines and policies. Each release will mirror the stable community releases provided by jboss.org, sans trademarked names and logos. The 4.2 branch will be the initial release target.
Future considerations include packaging/redistribution within CentOS, as well as the possibility of creating a free and open CentOS Application Stack.
I will serve as the initial project lead, and developer.
Thank you,
Steven Stallion wrote:
I would like to formally propose a new project for CentOS for inclusion on projects.centos.org: CentAS.
for me - wierd name. the jboss stuff is a part of the webstack, which is something that is going to get done / built anyway, so the project should be aimed at that and the name should signify that. Also, the webstack includes other things ( which will be available for testing later today ), which are not Java related.
The CentAS project aims to provide a free and redistributable version of JBoss which compiles with Red Hat trademark guidelines and policies. Each release will mirror the stable community releases provided by jboss.org, sans trademarked names and logos. The 4.2 branch will be the initial release target.
How is this going to overlap / co-exist with the rhwas stuff ?
Future considerations include packaging/redistribution within CentOS, as well as the possibility of creating a free and open CentOS Application Stack.
First question on that is - what jvm / jre / jdk is going to be used ? is it completely open source and are there any distribution / redistribution issues associated with this ?
I will serve as the initial project lead, and developer.
you still need a centos developer to join your team of developers :D
Karanbir Singh wrote:
for me - wierd name. the jboss stuff is a part of the webstack, which is something that is going to get done / built anyway, so the project should be aimed at that and the name should signify that. Also, the webstack includes other things ( which will be available for testing later today ), which are not Java related.
As far as the name goes, JBossAS is the official name of the project for the Application Server component of JBoss; CentAS adds a familiar name (i.e. CentOS) along with the defacto acronym for most J2EE application servers. I suppose the important thing to keep in mind here is that JBoss is a standalone project (you generally do not see it in stack form in the wild; rhwas is a relatively new invention). It runs on a variety of operating systems and JVM's. Again, this project is intended to be standalone in terms of distribution and development; packaging with VM's and other bits is important to create an application stack, but is out of scope for getting the project going.
The CentAS project aims to provide a free and redistributable version of JBoss which compiles with Red Hat trademark guidelines and policies. Each release will mirror the stable community releases provided by jboss.org, sans trademarked names and logos. The 4.2 branch will be the initial release target.
How is this going to overlap / co-exist with the rhwas stuff ?
Again, rhwas isnt the goal here, its a redistributable version of JBoss (which exists as a standlone project). The idea is to mirror each stable release provided by jboss.org with branding/trademarks removed.
Future considerations include packaging/redistribution within CentOS, as well as the possibility of creating a free and open CentOS Application Stack.
First question on that is - what jvm / jre / jdk is going to be used ? is it completely open source and are there any distribution / redistribution issues associated with this ?
With regard to distributing a JVM, it is out of scope (see above). JBoss was written to run on a number of platform/VM combinations. The project is released under the LGPL, and includes other projects with a range of other FOSS licenses (i.e. BSD, CPL, CDDL, etc.) Redistribution issues are the reason for the project; to redistribute JBoss with modifications, it is necessary to remove all Red Hat/JBoss/Hibernate trademarks and logos (this is specified in the Red Hat Trademark Guidelines, and JBoss EULA).
you still need a centos developer to join your team of developers :D
Not that I am opposed to this at all, but for donated work is this necessary? All information/code/etc. would be hosted on the CentOS project servers.
Cheers,
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Steven Stallion stallions@ociweb.com wrote:
With regard to distributing a JVM, it is out of scope (see above).
Not fully, since we can not distribute JVMs with e.g. Sun's indemnification clause. If this is to be a CentOS project, I think it should be runnable with CentOS plus a JDK that we can distribute. As far as I am aware, the only Sun-heritage JDK that we can distribute are the GPL'ed OpenJDK bits. Does JBoss work well with this JDK?
you still need a centos developer to join your team of developers :D
Not that I am opposed to this at all, but for donated work is this necessary? All information/code/etc. would be hosted on the CentOS project servers.
We require this for all CentOS-hosted projects and SIGs. CentOS is a long-term project, and having a development team member on a subproject will guarantee some continuity. Apart from that, some decisions (e.g. some policy decisions) may need to be delegated to the development team.
May I ask a more explicit question: what advantages will a whitelabel JBoss stack give to CentOS over RHWAS, taking the additional maintenance "costs" into account? Additionally, how will continuity be guaranteed for existing users if Object Computing loses interest in maintaining this?
Not to burn down your project proposal ;), but I think these are important questions to answer beforehand.
-- Daniel
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Steven Stallion stallions@ociweb.com wrote:
With regard to distributing a JVM, it is out of scope (see above).
Not fully, since we can not distribute JVMs with e.g. Sun's indemnification clause. If this is to be a CentOS project, I think it should be runnable with CentOS plus a JDK that we can distribute. As far as I am aware, the only Sun-heritage JDK that we can distribute are the GPL'ed OpenJDK bits. Does JBoss work well with this JDK?
I think there may be a misunderstanding of how JBoss is packaged and shipped. There is no JVM distributed along with JBoss; CentAS would be treated precisely the same. Again, it is designed to run on a number of different JVM's which of course vary for each deployment platform.
We require this for all CentOS-hosted projects and SIGs. CentOS is a long-term project, and having a development team member on a subproject will guarantee some continuity. Apart from that, some decisions (e.g. some policy decisions) may need to be delegated to the development team.
Makse sense; thanks for the explanation.
May I ask a more explicit question: what advantages will a whitelabel JBoss stack give to CentOS over RHWAS, taking the additional maintenance "costs" into account? Additionally, how will continuity be guaranteed for existing users if Object Computing loses interest in maintaining this?
As far as the advantages go, the a whitelabel JBoss allows for modified redistributions of JBoss; currently this is not possible due to Red Hat Trademark Guidelines. There are a number of projects/companies out there which rely on JBoss, and in some cases require re-distributing JBoss alongside their project.
I certainly understand the concern with respect to project continuity. This is a long term project for OCI; there is quite a bit of money invested into this. OCI has been providing for similar projects (TAO, JacORB) for over 10 years now; the same longevity is expected for JBoss related projects.
Not to burn down your project proposal ;), but I think these are important questions to answer beforehand.
Absolutely! I appreciate the feedback.
-- Daniel _______________________________________________ CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
Steven Stallion wrote:
Daniel de Kok wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 6:03 PM, Steven Stallion stallions@ociweb.com wrote:
With regard to distributing a JVM, it is out of scope (see above).
Not fully, since we can not distribute JVMs with e.g. Sun's indemnification clause. If this is to be a CentOS project, I think it should be runnable with CentOS plus a JDK that we can distribute. As far as I am aware, the only Sun-heritage JDK that we can distribute are the GPL'ed OpenJDK bits. Does JBoss work well with this JDK?
I think there may be a misunderstanding of how JBoss is packaged and shipped. There is no JVM distributed along with JBoss; CentAS would be treated precisely the same. Again, it is designed to run on a number of different JVM's which of course vary for each deployment platform.
Well ... looking at this objectively, there is jboss.org already and it seems a vibrant community already. All the releases there are GPL and can be rebuilt and used.
There is also this that I see "JBoss Enterprise Application Platform" .. which I assume is this from RHEL sources: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/JBEAP/SRPMS/
Now, that contains SRPMS that are jpp ... and must be compiled with some version of Java. So, that would need to be made work on an open version of Java (like java-1.6.0.openjdk).
I also understand that Red Hat is selling other products as well that I do not see the SRPMS for (unless they are included in the ones I posted in JBEAP).
These include all the other things listed here: http://www.jboss.com/products/index
and here: http://www.redhat.com/jboss/
(Enterprise Portal Platform, Enterprise Data Services Platform, Enterprise SOA Platform, etc.)
However, I see most of those things also here as GPL: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=22866
more below ...
We require this for all CentOS-hosted projects and SIGs. CentOS is a long-term project, and having a development team member on a subproject will guarantee some continuity. Apart from that, some decisions (e.g. some policy decisions) may need to be delegated to the development team.
Makse sense; thanks for the explanation.
May I ask a more explicit question: what advantages will a whitelabel JBoss stack give to CentOS over RHWAS, taking the additional maintenance "costs" into account? Additionally, how will continuity be guaranteed for existing users if Object Computing loses interest in maintaining this?
As far as the advantages go, the a whitelabel JBoss allows for modified redistributions of JBoss; currently this is not possible due to Red Hat Trademark Guidelines. There are a number of projects/companies out there which rely on JBoss, and in some cases require re-distributing JBoss alongside their project.
This then is where we require explanation. I understand the need for a scrubbed version of things to meet trademark restrictions.
I see only this from the JBoss.com site: http://www.jboss.com/company/logos
That points to the standard trademark page that we also use for guidance: http://www.redhat.com/about/companyprofile/trademark/
So, at this point, what we really need is a discussion about what it is we are trying to accomplish. By this I mean, show me something that says what needs to be removed (and I may have already published that in my links).
Lets include in the discussion what files specifically we are going to try to scrub/rebuild and then redistribute ... and what license they are under,etc.
Also in the discussion what form are redistributing in (SRPMS/RPMS ... tar balls ... etc.)
I think be defining this we (the CentOS Core team) can better understand all the issues at hand.
I can see the benefit of doing this, if it is done correctly ... and I think I see the need as well, but I also think a vibrant detailed discussion can be helpful as well.
Thanks, JOhnny Hughes
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
All,
I would like to thank those that have provided feedback regarding this proposal. After speaking with a few of my colleagues and management, we have decided to withdraw this proposal from the CentOS community.
(This decision has more to do with issues pertaining to distribution (and subsequently bandwidth requirements) than anything else. The project will continue, however we will be most likely be hosting the project on Source Forge.)
We are still very interested in seeing CentOS grow an alternative to the application stack provided by Red Hat. We very much hope that CentOS may be able to leverage some of the work we will be contributing; that is a freely modifiable/re-distributable version of JBoss.
Kindest Regards,
- -- Steven Stallion Senior Software Engineer Object Computing, Inc. http://www.ociweb.com
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Steven Stallion wrote:
I would like to formally propose a new project for CentOS for inclusion on projects.centos.org: CentAS.
for me - wierd name.
CentAS is not an acceptable name for a project.
It is too close to CentOS and too confusable with Rhel AS .
Regards Lance
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Lance Davis lance@centos.org wrote:
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Steven Stallion wrote:
I would like to formally propose a new project for CentOS for inclusion on projects.centos.org: CentAS.
for me - wierd name.
CentAS is not an acceptable name for a project.
It is too close to CentOS and too confusable with Rhel AS .
Besides, centas.org is already registered ;).
-
Daniel de Kok -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Lance Davis -
Steven Stallion