Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
I believe the FSF has an ulterior motive for keeping the Java situation quite murky. -- justin
I'd like to caution you against attributing motives to other's actions or inactions. I'm not making this suggestion with any official Apache hat on, but based on my experience that such statements rarely lead to productive consequences.
As for me, I would like to observe that we have the public statements made by the FSF, including the text of the GPL license. We have the knowledge that this issue has been around for a long time and has never been resolved. And we know that that people like Brian have invested a fair amount of time on this topic.
What I conclude from this is that it would be both difficult and unlikely for a successful resolution of this issue. Despite the fact that quite a number of us (myself included) would love to see this resolved.
As Santiago hints, I bet Mono will lead the way for this. We care to have this resolved, but it's not vital to have the FSF flag on our camp. For them is a different story (even if, they already released their libraries using the MIT license and RMS wasn't pleased, to say it midly)
-- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham] --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
