On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 02:17:03PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > My 2 cents, As a committer on the most forked SOAP engine on the > planet (Apache Axis - > http://wiki.apache.org/ws/FrontPage/Axis/AxisBeingUsed)..i can safely > say that this is why i keep working on Apache stuff, you never know > where your code will turn up next. For example > (http://www.hpsearch.org/documents/api/cgl/hpsearch/common/SOAPClient.html) > and i like it that way.
Yeah, same here, as a committer on the most widely forked VM out there (Kaffe, GPLd, forks from Pocketlinux, DOS, BeOS, to MiNT, WinCE, Plan9, to all sort of cool research stuff like latte, jessica2, janosvm, ..), I actively encourage people to go and just fork it for their needs, in case things are moving too fast on cvs HEAD for them. Forks are great. It's merging back changes that's painful with cvs ;) cheers, dalibor topic > thanks, > dims > > On 12/4/05, Leo Simons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anthony, > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:03:44PM -0800, Anthony Green wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote: > > > > I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is > > > > that it might > > > > be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark > > > > seemed to think > > > > that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some spare > > > > time (I hope it'll > > > > be under the christmas tree) I hope to push forward om some of that. > > > > > > I don't understand this. > > > > I don't fully understand it either. > > > > > The GNU Classpath license was designed to be > > > even more liberal than the LGPL. What makes relicensing GNU Classpath > > > to LGPL a good idea? > > > > It looks like it might be a step on a path to having hundreds of developers > > who > > are part of the GNU community working with hundreds of developers who are > > part > > of the ASF community. > > > > It looks like such a step a little more than the GPL+Exception license > > does. I > > think that's primarily because the various legal properties of the LGPL are > > apparently better understood (or liked) by a large variety of legal people > > than > > the GPL+Exception license. > > > > (...) > > > > I don't pretend to understand what drives most people who prefer "free > > software" > > to "open source" or the other way around. I have never cared very much > > about copyleft > > or copyright or "software freedoms". Can't get worked up about it. I care > > about "real > > life freedoms", such as "freedom of speech" or "freedom to have at least > > one proper > > meal a day". > > > > Anyway, the "freedom" I keep looking for is "the freedom to all work > > together on cool > > code without worrying about licensing". If lots of people are less worried > > about the > > LGPL than about other licenses, then that means the LGPL is, in my world > > view, a nice > > license. It would probably be best to try and make those worried people > > worry less > > about the GPL+Exception, but that seems like a very hard thing to do. > > > > I hope the above made sense... > > > > - LSD > > > > > > > -- > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
