Hi, Most of this seems common sense. And I am a bit surprised people feel that it needs to be spelled out. But it is probably good to make the intentions completely clear even for a public list.
Just one little nitpick. On Wed, 2005-07-13 at 10:22 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > The terms and conditions that apply to > your Contributions are defined by either a contributor license > agreement (CLA) signed by you and/or your employer or, if no such CLA > is on file at the Foundation, by the terms and conditions of > Contributions as defined by the Apache License, Version 2.0. Could we not use the Apache License, Version 2.0. But state something like "are in the public domain". (Or use APL/GPL-dual license, LGPL, MIT/X, modern-BSD, etc.) So that we can all use such contributions. Most of the existing projects, like gcj, kaffe, cacao, jamvm, GNU Classpath, etc. cannot accept GPL-incompatible code. Thanks, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
