On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Scott Hernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the Ant team had the option, now that they have been out there so > long, I wonder if they would choose a sep. license for any reason.
I can only speak for myself, I wouldn't. Ant has become as successful as it is for several reasons and one of them is IDE integration. Something that would have been difficult not only for commercial IDEs but also for NetBeans or Eclipse to do if the license was more rstricitve. I understand that IDEs are more important in Java land than in the .NET world where resistance against Visual Studio look futile. > I wonder if there are times that they wish they could have stopped > someone from doing something with another license. There has been one point, where a company released a version of Ant that shipped with a modified <javac> task. This task would perform some smarter dependency scanning than Ant's built-in task does and thus avoid the situation where Ant requires you to do a clean compile to pick up all code changes. They claimed their version of Ant was up to ten times faster than Ant. But realistically you can't protect yourself against wrong claims with your license. It could have been another open-source project that used the same wrong statement, so prohibiting commercial modifications won't help here. What has helped have been our users 8-) They challenged the company with their real world build files (where <javac> by itself usually takes a very small share of total build time) on the companies discussion board and the claim pretty soon vanished. Stefan ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ nant-developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nant-developers
