On 11/7/05, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/7/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I'm not sure it's important to Sun. To my knowledge the decision > > to move to apache was made by the Roller community and had nothing to do > > with Sun. > > > While not wanting to end up in a 'he-said, she-said'; I thought the > history was that the Roller chose not to join prior to Dave joining > Sun, but that Sun pointed out further advantages. One of these being > attention to legal issues, and the matter was rethought. I apologise > if I've got that wrong though, much of that is probably reading into > things being said. > > I just mailed concerning the issue being over ASF policy now; that > policy is most concerned with the rights of downstream users. ie) if a > company were to release a commercial version of the project, that the > LGPL usage wouldn't torpedo their desire to do so.
I know this is a dead horse, but I feel like beating something today. ;-) http://www.hibernate.org/196.html <quote> Using Hibernate (by importing Hibernate's public interfaces in your Java code), and extending Hibernate (by subclassing or implementation of an extension interface) is considered by the authors of Hibernate to be dynamic linking. Hence our interpretation of the LGPL is that the use of the unmodified Hibernate source does not affect the license of your application code. </quote> We haven't modified Hibernate at all, so including hibernate3.jar in our code does not have a viral nature to it - at least as far as I'm concerned. That being said, if it's just a matter of not being able to include JARs in SVN, we could use Maven 2's Ant tasks, and download them dynamically before building everything. I've played with this a bit and it seems to work pretty well (though the metadata for Maven's transitive dependencies still needs quite a bit of work). We could also have an "installer" that downloads JARs and prompts the user to restart their context. I'd rather pursue fancy installation tactics than re-write anything. Although, we probably could've re-wrote everything by now rather than sending all these e-mails. ;-) Matt > > > > That being said, I agree with Matt. I am just here to develop code and > > make the project better. From all the recent discussions it sounds like > > being part of Apache will force us to backtrack quite a bit for no good > > reason. So I agree that if we can't find a way to resolve the legal issues > > fairly easily then maybe we shouldn't be an Apache project yet. > > > Agreed. +1 :) What needs deciding is what we think 'fairly easily' is. > > Currently I see us needing to: > > 1) remove some jars from SVN and have Ant post a message to the user > asking them to put those files in place (with URLs). Not pretty, but > good and workable. > > 2) do the same when installing a distribution > > 3) have a plan for required dependencies (namely Hibernate). JSR 220 > seems like a good eventual plan, we just have to get a feel for the > timing. We're already on the right version of Hibernate right? > > Then we have to decide how long we release 'forks' at java.net and > when we can start to release at apache.org. 1.3 is looking like a > java.net; and it sounds like 2.0 wants to release very quickly so that > would imply java.net there too. > > So... is the above too far from 'fairly easily'? Should we be talking > about extracting to java.net, or about modifying things? > > Hen >
