Cool. As I mentioned, it's really just some cleanup I've wanted to do for awhile. I will let you know as soon as it's done.
On Feb 11, 2008 4:06 PM, Assaf Arkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/10/08, Caleb Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm going to re-license the Antwrap library using the Apache Software > > License so that it is compatible with Buildr. I feel the ASF license > > is the most appropriate considering that Antwrap is a binding for > > another Apache project. > > > > I was also planning on making some minor packaging changes to Antwrap > > and improving the tests. But it may be that doing so will cause some > > delays for you guys if you are planning a release. Would it be easier > > for the Buildr project if I release a new version of Antwrap with the > > ASF license (and no code changes), and then release a subsequent > > version with code changes? > > > I asked about this, but my sense so far is that it won't be a problem. > Since we're in incubation right now, the requirements are more relaxed, so > we can do with the current release and just wait for the next version of > Antwrap. > > > Assaf > > > Cheers! > > > > Caleb > > > > On Feb 6, 2008 6:18 PM, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > I've just committed our NOTICE files and the licenses of the libraries > > we > > > depend on. For everybody to be on the same page, the policy regarding > > > third-party dependencies at the ASF is roughly (at least for now): > > > > > > - ASL, MIT, BSD are okay. > > > - CDDL, CPL, EPL, MPL are sort of okay but to be used with care > > > (additional warnings). Avoiding them altogether would be nice, > > especially > > > given that we don't depend on any of these ATM. We're in a gray area > > here > > > (the main difficult point being that you *always* distribute sources > > in > > > Ruby). > > > - GPL, LGPL, BCL, Sleepycat and a few others are definitely not okay. > > > > > > As you may have noticed the Ruby license is not in the list. I've asked > > some > > > feedback on it but I don't anticipate big problems there, the Ruby > > license > > > itself (obviously we wouldn't choose the GPL) is fairly liberal even if > > it > > > has a few quirks. > > > > > > So provided that the Ruby License is fine, all our dependencies are > > kosher > > > except Antwrap (LGPL). We'll see what we can do there. > > > > > > From now on please keep the following in mind: > > > > > > 1. If you plan to add a hard dependency (not an optional feature) on > > > something and it's not licensed under ASL, MIT or BSD, please ask > > here > > > first. > > > 2. For all other open source projects you're involved in, think twice > > > before choosing a license and make the license choice and the > > copyright > > > clear. Please. For the sanity of those who will use your stuff. > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > Matthieu > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Caleb > > > > "I do not know which makes a man more conservative—to know nothing but > > the present, or nothing but the past." > > - John Maynard Keynes > > > > > > -- > > CTO, Intalio > http://www.intalio.com > -- Caleb "I do not know which makes a man more conservative—to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past." - John Maynard Keynes
