On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:04, Paul Hammant wrote:
> * Keep Sevak API at Apache
> * Keep Catalina impl at Apache
> * Move Jo! impl to Sourceforge
> * Move Jetty impl to Sourceforge
Keep them all together as else it will be hell to maintain and use. So move
them all out to somewhere where they can evo
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 04:30, Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> Seriously, I don't want to spoil the party, but it sounds braindead to
> me that we have to move our own, self-written code out of Apache, even
> if everyone wants it to stay.
Since when have you known politics to be sensible? :)
--
Cheers,
Pet
Paul Hammant wrote, On 17/02/2003 14.04:
Folks,
We've had a number of ideas on what to do with Sevak, given we have license issues. I think the
last idea was:
* Keep Sevak API at Apache
* Keep Catalina impl at Apache
* Move Jo! impl to Sourceforge
* Move Jetty impl to Sourceforge
+1
Ulrich Mayring wrote:
Paul Hammant wrote:
We have had instruction on 'import'. Jars here or there are irrelvant.
Hello Paul,
so what about Sun's Java License? We're doing many imports of JDK
public APIs :)
Seriously, I don't want to spoil the party, but it sounds braindead to
me that we
Ulrich,
> so what about Sun's Java License? We're doing many imports of JDK public
> APIs :)
I tend to agree. However, for teh record, APIs provided by the compilation
environment as a
default are typically exempt from the complex licensing situations. The GPL itself,
however
amazingly viral
On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 12:07 PM, Paul Hammant wrote:
I can understand Jo! since it is GPL.
You mean LGPL, which is very different to teh GPL, but similarly
forbidden for use (import) at
Apache.
right :)
But Jetty's license is based off
the artistic license. What's wrong with that?
> > Sevak API is fine. The impls, clearly, import other people's
> > codebases. "using public APIs" also
> > counts GPL. Here we are only talking about LGPL and a proprietary
> > credit-affording license for
> > Jetty.
>
> I can understand Jo! since it is GPL.
You mean LGPL, which is very d
On Monday, February 17, 2003, at 09:33 AM, Paul Hammant wrote:
Sevak API is fine. The impls, clearly, import other people's
codebases. "using public APIs" also
counts GPL. Here we are only talking about LGPL and a proprietary
credit-affording license for
Jetty.
I can understand Jo! since it
Paul Hammant wrote:
We have had instruction on 'import'. Jars here or there are irrelvant.
Hello Paul,
so what about Sun's Java License? We're doing many imports of JDK public
APIs :)
Seriously, I don't want to spoil the party, but it sounds braindead to
me that we have to move our own, se
Ulrich,
> > With respect to the former, I think sevak api should go to say incubator. The
>catalina impl
> > should either go with it, or end up with Catalina (as a separate download?).
>
> I think the Sevak API should remain with Phoenix, because it is a
> central feature to an application
Paul:
My preference is to keep Servak here as I think there is still more
cooking to be done on this particular facility. What exactly are the
license issues that would need to deal with?
Cheers, Steve.
Paul Hammant wrote:
Folks,
We've had a number of ideas on what to do with
Paul Hammant wrote:
With respect to the former, I think sevak api should go to say incubator. The catalina impl
should either go with it, or end up with Catalina (as a separate download?).
I think the Sevak API should remain with Phoenix, because it is a
central feature to an application ser
Folks,
We've had a number of ideas on what to do with Sevak, given we have license issues. I
think the
last idea was:
* Keep Sevak API at Apache
* Keep Catalina impl at Apache
* Move Jo! impl to Sourceforge
* Move Jetty impl to Sourceforge
With respect to the former, I think sevak api s
13 matches
Mail list logo
