Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Martin Cooper]

Bzt! Wrong!

Unless, of course, that was Middle English I was being taught throughout my
school days in the UK, and my UK dictionaries date from that period... ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


- Original Message -
From: "Sale, Doug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Jakarta General List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?


> except that licence, is only used in Middle English
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 1:20 AM
> > To: Jakarta General List
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> >
> >
> > Are you referring to the noun or the verb?
> >
> > http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=licence*1+0
> >
> > In short, "licence" is the noun, "license" is the verb.
> >
> > Geez, these Americans think they speak English... ;-) ;-)
> >
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -
> > From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> >
> >
> > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=license
> > >
> > > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=licence
> > >
> > >
> > > alex wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At 09:16 07/03/02, Danny Angus wrote:
> > > > > > It is spelled licence.  ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Wow - we managed to correct Jon on a technical point!
> > (Just kidding
> > Jon -
> > > > no offence)
> > > >
> > > > licenSe is what Apache Software Foundation does - ie the act of
> > licensing.
> > > > licenCe is the document or permit given - eg the file itself.
> > > >
> > > > Since this is all about the document then "licenCe" is the correct
> > spelling
> > > > (ignoring Case that is).
> > > >
> > > > Personally I feel the existing web page which Jon
> > reminded us of was
> > quite
> > > > good and if there is anything important missing then that
> > is the page
> > which
> > > > should be improved.
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Sale, Doug]

except that licence, is only used in Middle English

> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Cooper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 1:20 AM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the noun or the verb?
> 
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=licence*1+0
> 
> In short, "licence" is the noun, "license" is the verb.
> 
> Geez, these Americans think they speak English... ;-) ;-)
> 
> --
> Martin Cooper
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> 
> 
> > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=license
> >
> > http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=licence
> >
> >
> > alex wrote:
> > >
> > > At 09:16 07/03/02, Danny Angus wrote:
> > > > > It is spelled licence.  ;-)
> > >
> > > Wow - we managed to correct Jon on a technical point!   
> (Just kidding
> Jon -
> > > no offence)
> > >
> > > licenSe is what Apache Software Foundation does - ie the act of
> licensing.
> > > licenCe is the document or permit given - eg the file itself.
> > >
> > > Since this is all about the document then "licenCe" is the correct
> spelling
> > > (ignoring Case that is).
> > >
> > > Personally I feel the existing web page which Jon 
> reminded us of was
> quite
> > > good and if there is anything important missing then that 
> is the page
> which
> > > should be improved.
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Martin Cooper]

Are you referring to the noun or the verb?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=licence*1+0

In short, "licence" is the noun, "license" is the verb.

Geez, these Americans think they speak English... ;-) ;-)

--
Martin Cooper


- Original Message -
From: "Ted Husted" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?


> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=license
>
> http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=licence
>
>
> alex wrote:
> >
> > At 09:16 07/03/02, Danny Angus wrote:
> > > > It is spelled licence.  ;-)
> >
> > Wow - we managed to correct Jon on a technical point!   (Just kidding
Jon -
> > no offence)
> >
> > licenSe is what Apache Software Foundation does - ie the act of
licensing.
> > licenCe is the document or permit given - eg the file itself.
> >
> > Since this is all about the document then "licenCe" is the correct
spelling
> > (ignoring Case that is).
> >
> > Personally I feel the existing web page which Jon reminded us of was
quite
> > good and if there is anything important missing then that is the page
which
> > should be improved.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Pier Fumagalli]

"Marc Saegesser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I would love to see a document describes the Apache Software License, the
> philosophy behind it and why we think the ASL is a good thing.  What I don't
> want is another tirade about why GPL sucks.

That's a "good thing" (TM) ,but, as well, I don't think it's the scope of
the Jakarta Project, but rather of the Foundation and of the Board to come
up with such a thing.

And the best place for this discussion is [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jon, is
that right?)

Pier


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Pier Fumagalli]

"Jeff Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
> thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
> O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
> 
> Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
> sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
> suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
> submit a patch.

-1, and I already pointed out my vision...

Pier


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On 3/7/02 8:06 AM, "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> Ceki,
> 
>> My own personal experience indicates that if you first seek consesus
>> before acting, you are likely to never get anywhere. Regards, Ceki
> 
> Point taken, however in this case surely some degree of peer approval needs
> to be gained before people publicly express views as the views of the
> project as a whole? Though perhaps this debate is approval enough, and when
> I think about it perhaps there ought to be a disclaimer instead, along the
> lines of "This document outlines some common arguments and opinions
> expressed by some of our members, it does not necessarily represent the
> opinion of the ASF the Jakarta PMC or the membership". In which case you
> could probably get away with some quite extreme political statements. IMHO.
> :-)
> 

How about just publishing a pointer to the mail archive so it's clear?  :)

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
System and Software Consulting

Age and treachery will always triumph over youth and talent


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Danny Angus]

Ceki,

> My own personal experience indicates that if you first seek consesus
> before acting, you are likely to never get anywhere. Regards, Ceki

Point taken, however in this case surely some degree of peer approval needs
to be gained before people publicly express views as the views of the
project as a whole? Though perhaps this debate is approval enough, and when
I think about it perhaps there ought to be a disclaimer instead, along the
lines of "This document outlines some common arguments and opinions
expressed by some of our members, it does not necessarily represent the
opinion of the ASF the Jakarta PMC or the membership". In which case you
could probably get away with some quite extreme political statements. IMHO.
:-)



d.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Ceki Gulcu]

>Ceki are you sure?

>>I think we definitely need a solid document countering the
>> idyllic but false world depicted
>> by the FSF.
>
>I agree with comments you have made already, about the importance of licence
>and legal to ASF, Jakarta, and individuals involved, but I'm still not
>convinced that this(jakarta website) is the place to examine wider licence
>compatibilities.
>
>By all means have this discussion, but I think the page should be on
>www.apache.org and approved by people from all projects.
>
>Why? because it expresses an opinion, and expresses it as the opinion of
>Apache as a whole, and not only of the authors of the paper, therfore it has
>to actually represent the concensus of opinion. No?

Hi Danny,

What I am sure about is that licensing clarification efforts should be
inerted into the licence FAQ (www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html).  
Thanks for the heads up Jon.

Your point about seeking consensus first is interesting. As I
understand it, the common mechanism within Apache for doing things is
to get something out first, then seek feedback/agreement/consensus/
build some more, seek feedback on the changes, do some more, ...

My own personal experience indicates that if you first seek consesus
before acting, you are likely to never get anywhere. Regards, Ceki

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Ceki Gulcu]

Hi Alex,

You are absolutely right. I thought I had this one nailed but
apparently not. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Regards, Ceki

>> Asunto: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
>> The "Working Without Copyleft" article is remarkably good. The point
>> about the FSF controlling the LGPL is another very significant point:
>
>On the contrary, I found this to be the weakest point of the
>article. = The LGPL states that you can choose between the present
>license or any = later

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Ted Husted]

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=license

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=licence


alex wrote:
> 
> At 09:16 07/03/02, Danny Angus wrote:
> > > It is spelled licence.  ;-)
> 
> Wow - we managed to correct Jon on a technical point!   (Just kidding Jon -
> no offence)
> 
> licenSe is what Apache Software Foundation does - ie the act of licensing.
> licenCe is the document or permit given - eg the file itself.
> 
> Since this is all about the document then "licenCe" is the correct spelling
> (ignoring Case that is).
> 
> Personally I feel the existing web page which Jon reminded us of was quite
> good and if there is anything important missing then that is the page which
> should be improved.
> 
> Alex
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[alex]

At 09:16 07/03/02, Danny Angus wrote:
> > It is spelled licence.  ;-)

Wow - we managed to correct Jon on a technical point!   (Just kidding Jon - 
no offence)

licenSe is what Apache Software Foundation does - ie the act of licensing.
licenCe is the document or permit given - eg the file itself.

Since this is all about the document then "licenCe" is the correct spelling 
(ignoring Case that is).

Personally I feel the existing web page which Jon reminded us of was quite 
good and if there is anything important missing then that is the page which 
should be improved.


Alex



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Danny Angus]

>  you have the option of following the terms and conditions
> either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
> Software Foundation. If the Library does not specify a license version
> number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
> Foundation."

Sounds to me like a Get Rich Qwik scheme for lawyers.


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Fernandez Martinez, Alejandro]

Hi Ceki,

> -Mensaje original-
> De: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Enviado el: miércoles 6 de marzo de 2002 23:39
> Para: Jakarta General List

[snip]

> Asunto: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> The "Working Without Copyleft" article is remarkably good. The point
> about the FSF controlling the LGPL is another very significant point:

On the contrary, I found this to be the weakest point of the article. The
LGPL states that you can choose between the present license or any later
version, so any malicious changes to it can be ignored.

Below are the relevant sections of the article and the LGPL, so you can make
your own judgement (or seek legal advice ;)

>The Free Software Foundation controls the license. They can release a
>new version of the license, which then will automatically apply to our
>software. Although we do not expect the Free Software Foundation of
>making changes that deviate from the spirit of the current versions,
>they could make clarifications that are contrary to our
>intentions. For example, they may clarify that the result of
>aspect-oriented weaving is subject to the terms of the LGPL, whereas
>we had intended that it is not. Another concern is who will be in
>charge of the Free Software Foundation 10 years from now, or what
>happens if the Free Software Foundation is discontinued? [LGPL,
>section 13]

"13. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of
the Lesser General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Library
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Library does not specify a license version
number, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation."

Un saludo,

Alex.

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Jeff Schnitzer]

> From: Andrew C. Oliver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 
> The question is: "How do you want to spend your time?"
> 
> Possible answers:
> 
> 1> Fighting an "unwinnable" (defined as the argument having a logical
> conclusion where one side overwhelmingly wins) religious war with the
> GNU hordes (hirds? hurds? ;-) ). . .
> 
> 2> Coding and documenting

There are quite a few people around here who spent an awful lot of time
working on #2 because they weren't successful at #1.  If the WebMacro
folks hadn't stuck to the GPL, it would not have been necessary to
reinvent it as Velocity.

IMHO, evangelizing the APL is an important goal of the Apache project
precisely because it reduces the amount of (re)coding and
(re)documenting we will ultimately have to do.  I applaud Jeff's
document, and I would love to see the finished version linked off the
main Jakarta page (as well as www.apache.org).

Jeff Schnitzer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Danny Angus]

It is spelled licence.  ;-)

> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Scott Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:35 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> 
> 
> on 3/6/02 5:29 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > +1 -- I just think that needs to be prominantly linked...  I'm pretty
> > satisfied with it.
> 
> Linked and the filename changed. LicenSe.
> 
> -jon
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Danny Angus]

Ceki are you sure?

>I think we definitely need a solid document countering the
> idyllic but false world depicted
> by the FSF.

I agree with comments you have made already, about the importance of licence
and legal to ASF, Jakarta, and individuals involved, but I'm still not
convinced that this(jakarta website) is the place to examine wider licence
compatibilities.

By all means have this discussion, but I think the page should be on
www.apache.org and approved by people from all projects.

Why? because it expresses an opinion, and expresses it as the opinion of
Apache as a whole, and not only of the authors of the paper, therfore it has
to actually represent the concensus of opinion. No?

d.



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 21:07, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:47:49PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > My opinion is you've come across just about as objective as Richard
> > Stallman would be in the Microsoft Beta testing program.  
> 
> :-> Pretending to be objective is not my strong point.
> 
> > No offense but this is EXACTLY the opposite of what is needed.  Way too
> > inflamatory, partisan and counter-productive to the target of just
> > "explaining to the confused" as to what the differences are.  
> 
> My aim was not to give an exhaustive comparison. The O'Reilly and Perens
> pages do it much better than I could. I wanted to give an
> Apache-flavoured introduction to the debate, by introducing the main
> issue (GPL virality) and showing how that conflicted with Apache's
> community-orientedness. And then link to the real thing.
> 

The question is: "How do you want to spend your time?"  

Possible answers:

1> Fighting an "unwinnable" (defined as the argument having a logical
conclusion where one side overwhelmingly wins) religious war with the
GNU hordes (hirds? hurds? ;-) ). . . 

2> Coding and documenting

I'd pick #2.  Not scared of the Gnu, but *shrugs* no since in inciting a
riot for no reason.  Such doesn't do anything for Apache, but does do
mounds for the GNU stuff...  

If you're just bored there are plenty of things for you to do for POI
;-)

Anyhow, I DO applaud and appreciate you efforts...  


-Andy

> > I kinda think the link off of the Apache Manual was fine...
> 
> +1
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> > -Andy
> > 
> > On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:46, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> > > inclusion on jakarta-site2.
> ...
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
-- 
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document 
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Jeff Turner]

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:47:49PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> My opinion is you've come across just about as objective as Richard
> Stallman would be in the Microsoft Beta testing program.  

:-> Pretending to be objective is not my strong point.

> No offense but this is EXACTLY the opposite of what is needed.  Way too
> inflamatory, partisan and counter-productive to the target of just
> "explaining to the confused" as to what the differences are.  

My aim was not to give an exhaustive comparison. The O'Reilly and Perens
pages do it much better than I could. I wanted to give an
Apache-flavoured introduction to the debate, by introducing the main
issue (GPL virality) and showing how that conflicted with Apache's
community-orientedness. And then link to the real thing.

> I kinda think the link off of the Apache Manual was fine...

+1

--Jeff

> -Andy
> 
> On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:46, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> > inclusion on jakarta-site2.
...

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 3/6/02 5:29 PM, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> +1 -- I just think that needs to be prominantly linked...  I'm pretty
> satisfied with it.

Linked and the filename changed. LicenSe.

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 20:28, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
> on 3/6/02 4:52 PM, "Marc Saegesser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > I would love to see a document describes the Apache Software License, the
> > philosophy behind it and why we think the ASL is a good thing.
> 
> Probably suggesting more content for this page would be a good idea:
> 
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html
> 
> -jon
> 

+1 -- I just think that needs to be prominantly linked...  I'm pretty
satisfied with it.

> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
-- 
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document 
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Jon Scott Stevens]

on 3/6/02 4:52 PM, "Marc Saegesser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I would love to see a document describes the Apache Software License, the
> philosophy behind it and why we think the ASL is a good thing.

Probably suggesting more content for this page would be a good idea:

http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html

-jon


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Andrew C. Oliver]

On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 19:52, Marc Saegesser wrote:
> I would love to see a document describes the Apache Software License, the
> philosophy behind it and why we think the ASL is a good thing.  What I don't
> want is another tirade about why GPL sucks.  There's enough of that out
> there already and getting into pissing match over licensing just doesn't
> seem productive.  It would be good to have a basic "Here's what we stand
> for..." document with some pointers to other licenses and articles
> discussing licensing issues.  Anything beyond that, I believe, belongs less
> in the realm of the Apache web site and more in the realm of a magazine
> article or blog discussion, etc.
> 

+1 - Total agreement.

> Let people come look at our licensing document and how simple and open it
> is, then let them go see the GPL document and read about all the things they
> won't be able to use, all the things they won't be able to do and all the
> things the FSF doesn't like.  I think we win.
> 

But explain the basics and the basic difference.  "you have to do this,
you can do this, you cant do this" between say the top 3. 

I'll have to look again but I think the doc linked from the manual does
this.

> Marc Saegesser 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:43 PM
> > To: Jakarta General List
> > Subject: RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > At 16:17 06.03.2002 -0600, you wrote:
> > >-1
> > >
> > >I'm not sure we need this at all.
> > 
> > I disagree. I think we definitely need a solid document 
> > countering the 
> > idyllic but false world depicted
> > by the FSF. It's just a gargantuan task to come up with a 
> > such a document. 
> > Regards, Ceki
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For additional commands, e-mail: 
> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
-- 
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document 
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Jeff Turner]

On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:38:42PM +0100, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
> 
> Jeff,
> 
> Kudos for having the courage to proceed with this. Comments inline.

:) It's not easy or fun.

> At 08:46 07.03.2002 +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
...
> >Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
> >--
> >
> >This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
> >is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is
> >about creating communities that create great software. The ASL is a
> >minimum legal necessity that allows us to do this, nothing more. It
> >promotes no political axe-grinding, and has no great philosophy that
> >needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents such a small
> >conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably becomes
> >"what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to
> >misunderstandings, holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive,
> >and not fun, and why we find licensing debates distasteful.
> 
> The license is very much part of the Apache philosophy. It may even embody the
> essence of the philosophy.

The license says, basically, "do what you wan't, but don't sue us, don't
abuse our name, and give credit where credit is due". That isn't much of
a philosophy ;) It hints at the underlying importance we attach to the
Apache name, but that's all.

> No need to be apologetic about discussing licensing.

Not apologetic, just reflecting a general lack of keenness for licensing
debates, because they usually end up in unproductive GNU-bashing.

> A good license is more valuable than a million lines of code.  I maybe
> exaggerating but only a little.
> 
> >In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is
> >encouraged to read the GNU's philosophy pages
> >(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is wonderful, high-minded stuff
> >that most programmers instantly resonate with.  Opposing RMS's vision
> >of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a puppy.
> >
> >But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up
> >to be a bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it
> >can. Due to the GPL's extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules,
> >GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated into proprietary software. It must
> >all be copylefted, or none of it can be.
> 
> A bulldog? :-)

Something with teeth :) But yes, bad analogy; will be removed.

> >In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:
> 
> to (not in) *our* goal?

agreed

> >creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
> 
> that write code?

okay

> >"community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products
> >sold in volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling
> >software-based services, not software. When you're selling a service,
> >releasing the code makes no sense to *anyone*. The code is mostly
> >customer- or sector-specific, so is not reusable, and of little
> >interest to fellow developers. The customer *certainly* doesn't want
> >you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements and
> >potentially exposing security flaws to the world.
> 
> Hmm, are you sure we are only selling services? I dunno.

I claimed that "large parts of our community" are selling services, not
software. I don't know how true that is. I *suspect* it's true; that
there are more consultants here than people banging out commercial code.
I could be completely wrong. That's why it's so hard and dangerous to
claim to speak for anyone but oneself.

> Exposing security flaws to the world is very debatable. Most
> cryptographers consider "security-by-obscurity" as bad practice. I
> would drop the exposition argument.

Yes that was very much in my mind :) The detractors of "security through
obscurity" are usually talking about large commercial software. When you
have custom code written in a hurry on a tight budget, security holes
inevitably arise, and security through obscurity is better than nothing.

Though your first impression is how most people will see it, so I agree
it should be removed.

> I found the ethics argument in the Reese-Stenberg article to be very
> powerful.
> 
> The original author has no *absolute* right on extensions and
> improvements.  The fact that I wrote 100 initial lines of code gives
> me no right, moral, ethical or otherwise to impose a license on the
> 10'000 lines that you subsequently write.  I certainly have no rights
> on 10'000 lines of *unrelated* code!

Indeed! But arguments of morality are even more treacherous than
arguments of pure pragmatism. GNU proponents would surely argue that the
means justifies the end. The goal of Software Freedom warrants a bit of
arm-twisting.

> >Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
> >service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest
> >possible audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse
> >input results in software wi

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Marc Saegesser]

I would love to see a document describes the Apache Software License, the
philosophy behind it and why we think the ASL is a good thing.  What I don't
want is another tirade about why GPL sucks.  There's enough of that out
there already and getting into pissing match over licensing just doesn't
seem productive.  It would be good to have a basic "Here's what we stand
for..." document with some pointers to other licenses and articles
discussing licensing issues.  Anything beyond that, I believe, belongs less
in the realm of the Apache web site and more in the realm of a magazine
article or blog discussion, etc.

Let people come look at our licensing document and how simple and open it
is, then let them go see the GPL document and read about all the things they
won't be able to use, all the things they won't be able to do and all the
things the FSF doesn't like.  I think we win.

Marc Saegesser 

> -Original Message-
> From: Ceki Gülcü [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 4:43 PM
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 16:17 06.03.2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >-1
> >
> >I'm not sure we need this at all.
> 
> I disagree. I think we definitely need a solid document 
> countering the 
> idyllic but false world depicted
> by the FSF. It's just a gargantuan task to come up with a 
> such a document. 
> Regards, Ceki
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Andrew C. Oliver]

My opinion is you've come across just about as objective as Richard
Stallman would be in the Microsoft Beta testing program.  

No offense but this is EXACTLY the opposite of what is needed.  Way too
inflamatory, partisan and counter-productive to the target of just
"explaining to the confused" as to what the differences are.  

I kinda think the link off of the Apache Manual was fine...

-Andy

On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:46, Jeff Turner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
> thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
> O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
> 
> Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
> sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
> suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
> submit a patch.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> 
> Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
> --
> 
> This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
> is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is about creating
> communities that create great software. The ASL is a minimum legal necessity
> that allows us to do this, nothing more. It promotes no political axe-grinding,
> and has no great philosophy that needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents
> such a small conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably becomes
> "what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to misunderstandings,
> holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive, and not fun, and why we find
> licensing debates distasteful.
> 
> In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is encouraged to
> read the GNU's philosophy pages (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is
> wonderful, high-minded stuff that most programmers instantly resonate with.
> Opposing RMS's vision of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a
> puppy.
> 
> But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up to be a
> bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it can. Due to the GPL's
> extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules, GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated
> into proprietary software. It must all be copylefted, or none of it can be.
> 
> In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:
> creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
> "community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products sold in
> volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling software-based services,
> not software. When you're selling a service, releasing the code makes no sense
> to *anyone*. The code is mostly customer- or sector-specific, so is not
> reusable, and of little interest to fellow developers. The customer *certainly*
> doesn't want you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements
> and potentially exposing security flaws to the world.
> 
> Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
> service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest possible
> audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse input results in
> software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability and the kind of
> tough-as-nails quality we strive for.
> 
> Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL for
> "everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and cooperation,
> ultimately leading to better software.
> 
> For further information, please refer to the well-researched and well-written
> O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
> A good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book "Open
> Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> 
-- 
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document 
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html 
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Ceki Gülcü]

At 16:17 06.03.2002 -0600, you wrote:
>-1
>
>I'm not sure we need this at all.

I disagree. I think we definitely need a solid document countering the 
idyllic but false world depicted
by the FSF. It's just a gargantuan task to come up with a such a document. 
Regards, Ceki



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Ceki Gülcü]

Jeff,

Kudos for having the courage to proceed with this. Comments inline.

At 08:46 07.03.2002 +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
>Hi,
>
>As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
>inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
>thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
>O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
>
>Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
>sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
>suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
>submit a patch.
>
>--Jeff
>
>
>Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
>--
>
>This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
>is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is about 
>creating
>communities that create great software. The ASL is a minimum legal necessity
>that allows us to do this, nothing more. It promotes no political 
>axe-grinding,
>and has no great philosophy that needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents
>such a small conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably 
>becomes
>"what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to misunderstandings,
>holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive, and not fun, and why we find
>licensing debates distasteful.

The license is very much part of the Apache philosophy. It may even embody the
essence of the philosophy. No need to be apologetic about discussing
licensing. A good license is more valuable than a million lines of code.
I maybe exaggerating but only a little.

>In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is encouraged to
>read the GNU's philosophy pages (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is
>wonderful, high-minded stuff that most programmers instantly resonate with.
>Opposing RMS's vision of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a
>puppy.
>
>But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up to be a
>bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it can. Due to the 
>GPL's
>extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules, GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated
>into proprietary software. It must all be copylefted, or none of it can be.

A bulldog? :-)

>In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:

to (not in) *our* goal?

>creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our

that write code?

>"community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products sold in
>volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling software-based services,
>not software. When you're selling a service, releasing the code makes no sense
>to *anyone*. The code is mostly customer- or sector-specific, so is not
>reusable, and of little interest to fellow developers. The customer 
>*certainly*
>doesn't want you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements
>and potentially exposing security flaws to the world.

Hmm, are you sure we are only selling services? I dunno.

Exposing security flaws to the world is very debatable. Most cryptographers
consider "security-by-obscurity" as bad practice. I would drop the exposition
argument.

I found the ethics argument in the Reese-Stenberg article to be very powerful.

The original author has no *absolute* right on extensions and improvements.
The fact that I wrote 100 initial lines of code gives me no right, moral, 
ethical or
otherwise to impose a license on the 10'000 lines that you subsequently write.
I certainly have no rights on 10'000 lines of *unrelated* code!

>Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
>service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest possible
>audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse input results in
>software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability and the kind of
>tough-as-nails quality we strive for.

The service orientation again. We can't know the exact motivations of 
developers
for authoring open source code. Service-oriented software, maybe but maybe 
not.
The service-orientation argument is correct, just not exhaustive.

>Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL for
>"everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and cooperation,
>ultimately leading to better software.

What is meant by "everyday" code?

>For further information, please refer to the well-researched and well-written
>O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
>http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
>A good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book "Open
>Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
>http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html

The "Working Without Copyleft" article is remarkably good. The point
about the FSF controlling the LGPL is another very significant point:

   The Free Software Foundation controls t

Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Jeff Turner]

On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:46:51AM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> inclusion on jakarta-site2.
...
> Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
> sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
> suggestions welcome.

On second thoughts...

I'm sure most of us are sick of the whole issue, and are NOT looking
forward to another barrage of email on the subject :-) So preferably,
keep replies to a simple vote and one-line explanation. Constructive
criticism and change suggestions are still welcome, but let's keep that
off-list as much as possible.

--Jeff

 
> --Jeff
> 
> 
> Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
> --
...

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: 

RE: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Marc Saegesser]

-1

I'm not sure we need this at all.

If it stopped after the first paragraph and didn't mention copyleft and GPL
in the title I'd be -0.

Shouldn't this really be an ASF level decision instead of a Jakarta level
one?


Marc Saegesser 

> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:47 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the 
> spirit of the
> thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed 
> arguments in the
> O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
> 
> Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
> sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
> suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
> submit a patch.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> 
> Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
> --
> 
> This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache 
> developers. The license
> is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache 
> is about creating
> communities that create great software. The ASL is a minimum 
> legal necessity
> that allows us to do this, nothing more. It promotes no 
> political axe-grinding,
> and has no great philosophy that needs defending. The ASL, in 
> fact, presents
> such a small conversational target that any licensing debate 
> inevitably becomes
> "what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to 
> misunderstandings,
> holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive, and not fun, 
> and why we find
> licensing debates distasteful.
> 
> In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is 
> encouraged to
> read the GNU's philosophy pages 
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is
wonderful, high-minded stuff that most programmers instantly resonate with.
Opposing RMS's vision of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a
puppy.

But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up to be a
bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it can. Due to the
GPL's
extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules, GPL'ed code cannot be
incorporated
into proprietary software. It must all be copylefted, or none of it can be.

In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our*
goal:
creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
"community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products sold
in
volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling software-based
services,
not software. When you're selling a service, releasing the code makes no
sense
to *anyone*. The code is mostly customer- or sector-specific, so is not
reusable, and of little interest to fellow developers. The customer
*certainly*
doesn't want you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements
and potentially exposing security flaws to the world.

Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest possible
audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse input results in
software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability and the kind of
tough-as-nails quality we strive for.

Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL for
"everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and
cooperation,
ultimately leading to better software.

For further information, please refer to the well-researched and
well-written
O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
A good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book "Open
Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?

[Jeff Turner]

Hi,

As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
O'Reilly article referenced at the end.

Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
submit a patch.

--Jeff


Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
--

This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is about creating
communities that create great software. The ASL is a minimum legal necessity
that allows us to do this, nothing more. It promotes no political axe-grinding,
and has no great philosophy that needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents
such a small conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably becomes
"what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to misunderstandings,
holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive, and not fun, and why we find
licensing debates distasteful.

In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is encouraged to
read the GNU's philosophy pages (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is
wonderful, high-minded stuff that most programmers instantly resonate with.
Opposing RMS's vision of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a
puppy.

But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up to be a
bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it can. Due to the GPL's
extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules, GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated
into proprietary software. It must all be copylefted, or none of it can be.

In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:
creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
"community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products sold in
volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling software-based services,
not software. When you're selling a service, releasing the code makes no sense
to *anyone*. The code is mostly customer- or sector-specific, so is not
reusable, and of little interest to fellow developers. The customer *certainly*
doesn't want you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements
and potentially exposing security flaws to the world.

Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest possible
audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse input results in
software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability and the kind of
tough-as-nails quality we strive for.

Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL for
"everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and cooperation,
ultimately leading to better software.

For further information, please refer to the well-researched and well-written
O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
A good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book "Open
Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   
For additional commands, e-mail: