Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Excluding LGPLed projects is just a political decision imho.
Emmanuel Bourg
Sorry for sounding newbie about this, but what exactly are the political
difficulties to hosting LGPL and ASL projects on the apache.org domain.
Does the ASF and the FSF not
Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Henning's .sig is especially apt in his reply btw. :) )
To me, the Levesque paper is a pretty good summary of the current
state of the (mostly GPL) open source community as a whole. It hurts
and she steps on so many toes of all the self-declared
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 13:13:32 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
Excluding LGPLed projects is just a political decision imho.
Emmanuel Bourg
Sorry for sounding newbie about this, but what exactly are the political
Henri Yandell wrote:
To answer Richard's question (didn't see it) I think the only
political difficulty is the usual 'Free-Software' vs 'Open-Source' one
that has existed for a long time. Which links to Henning's point; we
spend tonnes of time and effort on tiny matters on legal pedantics
instead
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMHO, it is a real must read for everyone that writes and especially
uses open source. Funnily enough, many of the points that she raises
don't apply to the ASF.
Hmm... I might disagree with that one. For example, I don't
, 2004 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Licensing
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMHO, it is a real must read for everyone that writes and especially
uses open source. Funnily enough, many of the points that she raises
don't apply to the ASF.
Hmm... I
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:19:36 +0200, Emmanuel Bourg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Henri Yandell wrote:
Now we're onto the IANAL stuff and ponderings on how to get such
suggestions to a lawyer without it turning into an expensive 2 week
QA. Can Promissory Estoppel (whatever that is) be given
On 7 Oct 2004, at 15:58, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
IMHO, it is a real must read for everyone that writes and especially
uses open source. Funnily enough, many of the points that she raises
don't apply to the ASF.
Hmm... I might
a lot with hibernate code and can think
of at least 4 projects that have hibernate code in them (at least as far as
import statements).
There _is_ a clear statement from the board. And even though we don't
really like it technology-wise, it is sound from a licensing point of
view.
#1 No LGPL
-wise, it is sound from a licensing point of
view.
#1 No LGPL dependencies in code delivered from *.apache.org
#2 import xxx where xxx is a LGPLed package is already a dependency.
I think that Geir made this clear on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So every project that does have e.g. Hibernate
://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing
This is on the old-soon-to-be-deprecated wiki, and it hasn't been ported
over.
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech software . strategy . design http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED
is due too licensing concerns, not due too any technical
consideration.
I've been discussing with Paul the possibility of a establishing a
consortium style Service Provider interface for Research Grade
random number generators (separate from the java.security.SecureRandom
API). Is this something
) a problem. So the
removal is due too licensing concerns, not due too any technical
consideration.
I think some information has not gotten to you. Paul Houle has just
re-released RngPack under a BSD style license. We're discussing other
Licensing options as well.
I've been discussing with Paul
.
Also, can you possibly comment on your position and or interest
concerning the possible inclusion of some parts of your codebase into
Jakarta Commons Math in the possible future? That is, if our ASF
licensing permits.
Overall, I've moved on to other areas (P2P databases). So these days,
I'm
A point I see, and maybe Paul can comment on this, is that RngPack seems
to start providing its functionality at the level of
public double raw();
and not lower down at
public int nextInt();
So, to use an interface based solely on public int nextInt(); RngPack
and other packages may require
Hi,
I'm the COLT maintainer and not regularly on this list, so only saw the
discussion now circumstanstially.
The latest stable release (1.1.0) is repackaged due too popular demand,
eliminates license-offending packages, does not include GPL'd code
anymore, and is available from a new
the java.security.SecureRandom
API). Is this something you may have an interest in?
Also, can you possibly comment on your position and or interest
concerning the possible inclusion of some parts of your codebase into
Jakarta Commons Math in the possible future? That is, if our ASF
licensing permits.
thanks
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Michael A. Smith wrote:
Jeff Prickett wrote:
Michael,
The licensing details will be worked out soon.
hrm. what's this mean?
Just means that I will clean up the dates and double check that
each file holds a correct license before any formal release or snapshot
Michael,
The licensing details will be worked out soon.
A good portion of the Periodicity code base dates back to 2000. Some of
the UML diagrams date back to 1999.
However, you are right the code just checked in is totally new and as
such should hold (c) 2002.
As far as this being my own
Jeff Prickett wrote:
Michael,
The licensing details will be worked out soon.
hrm. what's this mean?
A good portion of the Periodicity code base dates back to 2000. Some of
the UML diagrams date back to 1999.
However, you are right the code just checked in is totally new and as
such should
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:16:05PM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
As for LGPL, it's technical shortcomings are indeed problematic,
specifically:
The scope of the LGPL is too coarse-grained. The scope is furthermore
open to interpretation. It is limited to some fuzzy notion of
functional
Exactly.
That is my case and the case of several friends of mine.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2001 4:16 AM
...
Also as the article says, non-copyleft code gets *more* contributions
than
22 matches
Mail list logo
