Thanks. I see now. For some other open source communities, they may say no Apache license as they may have their own brand.
Some bridges are needed. I'll build a community website (langhua.org) in 2009. I'll use this slogan for the community: they are mountains, we are a small valley. Regards, Shi Yusen 在 2008-11-13四的 14:04 -0600，David E Jones写道： > Pierre, > > The not invented here excuse? I do so wish it were that simple. > Unfortunately, it is not. Fortunately, OFBiz is way more mature than > that and the people involved are way more mature and experienced than > that. > > OFBiz has well over 100 third party libraries in it and most of those > are not from other ASF projects. Also, keep in mind that OFBiz was not > originally (ie from 2001) part of the ASF, and in 2006 when we were > working on the ASF incubation the only libraries that changed were to > use the transaction manager in Geronimo. > > For LGPL libraries it is true that we can write code that uses the > libraries, but we can't distribute the libraries with OFBiz. That > means we have to turn off all of the features that depend on them by > default, and turn off the build sections related to them. There are a > whole bunch of these already, and they are enough of a pain that > basically NO ONE uses them (see the ofbiz/OPTIONAL_LIBRARIES file for > details). If people had to do this for lots of libraries to do basic > things with OFBiz, it would kill the project. And, we've found through > experience that features that require these sorts of external/optional > libraries are simply not used. And for testing, we want it to be used, > preferably by everyone. > > In fact that's the point: we're trying to get testing infrastructure > in place that is good enough and easy enough so that everyone _will_ > start using it. > > For GPL libraries we can't even write code that uses them, otherwise > we'd have to license that code under the GPL license. We have chosen > for very significant reasons to use a BSD-style license, namely Apache > License 2.0, and we don't want OFBiz to be GPL licensed. If any part > of OFBiz was GPL licensed (not allowed at the ASF for legal reasons) > then any other code in the project that uses it would have to be GPL > licensed, and so on. So, it's not an option for ANYTHING, because we > don't want it to happen to EVERYTHING. If OFBiz was GPL licensed it > would remove a lot of motivations that people have to work on it, make > it incompatible with the customizations that most end-user > organizations want to do, and basically kill the project (notice how > no community-driven ERP projects exist that are GPL licensed, just > commercially driven ones and they want to use GPL so that people have > a reason to buy a commercial license). > > -David > > > On Nov 13, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Pierre Smits wrote: > > > Several times now I have seen statement that non Apache-products > > can't or > > shouldn't be used because they gpl or hpl (even worse as somebody > > mentioned). That sounds like 'we don't want it, because we (as in ASF > > commiters) didn't invent it. > > > > In my humble opinion this is not kosher. If a good product is out > > there and > > it has an open source licence, it can be used. The only thing > > required is a > > set of instructions how to use and/or include it in a user own > > installation > > of OFBiz. > > > > Regards, > > > > Pierre. > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> Ean Schuessler wrote: > >>> Cobertura is a good Free Software alternative to Clover. It may > >>> not be > >> everything that Clover is but its certainly not too bad. > >> > >> Except that it is gpl. There are no apache-compatible coverage > >> tools. > >> I looked :( > >> > >> However, any modifications I can come up with to ofbiz, to make it > >> have > >> a plugin-type model for supporting any byte-code-modifying coverage > >> tool, would be under the correct license. > >> > >> ps: Hint - I already have this plugin mostly done, just haven't > >> written > >> an implementation. > >> >
