Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 01:37, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Are they in trouble or are we wrong?
Nobody is in trouble (unless the hibernate people go after them, which
would be a pretty stupid thing to do anyway)
Stupid and counter to what they have publicly stated many times, that
their own
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 01:37, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Are they in trouble or are we wrong?
Nobody is in trouble (unless the hibernate people go after them, which
would be a pretty stupid thing to do anyway)
Stupid and counter to what they have publicly stated many times, that
their own
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Leszek Gawron wrote:
I am suprised of one fact: how can Spring be distributed with ASL 2.0
Note that at this time the stance of the ASF is that the LGPL should be
considered tainting when used with the 'import' of java code until such
point that the FSF publicly states
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Ugo Cei wrote:
Stupid and counter to what they have publicly stated many times, that
their own interpretation of the LGPL is that it is not viral.
However over the years we've not managed to get a public statement (or an
updated L-GPL license) which makes clear that
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 09:41, Dirk-Willem van Gulik ha scritto:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Ugo Cei wrote:
Stupid and counter to what they have publicly stated many times, that
their own interpretation of the LGPL is that it is not viral.
However over the years we've not managed to get a public
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 01:37, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Are they in trouble or are we wrong?
Nobody is in trouble (unless the hibernate people go after them,
which would be a pretty stupid thing to do anyway)
Stupid and counter to what they have publicly stated many times,
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:09, Ugo Cei wrote:
I'm aware of this. What I meant is that the Hibernate guys (and not the
FSF) have publicly stated that their own interpretation of the license
they have attached to their own code is that you can use it from a
project that has a different
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 10:34, Niclas Hedhman ha scritto:
Probability. One could wonder though, is Spring a trust-worthy liason,
legality-wise?
Are you running any of your applications on Linux? is Linux a
trust-worthy liason, legality-wise, in light of the SCO claims?
If you want to be really
On 11 Aug 2004, at 10:34, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
IAANAL, I think that Hibernate may be violating the LGPL by assigning
their
interpretation. LGPLing your product implies certain things, and the
FSF have
been very elaborate in their wording (so that you and I don't really
understand it) to make
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:45, Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 10:34, Niclas Hedhman ha scritto:
Probability. One could wonder though, is Spring a trust-worthy liason,
legality-wise?
Are you running any of your applications on Linux? is Linux a
trust-worthy liason,
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Steven Noels wrote:
ASF codebase, regardless of what the Hibernate folks state themselves.
Unelss they donate a second version of the code under a Software grant and
ongoing CLA - but i doubt that it would ever be clean enough for
incubation without that whole community
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 16:16, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 01:37, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Are they in trouble or are we wrong?
Nobody is in trouble (unless the hibernate people go after them,
which would be a pretty stupid thing to do anyway)
On Wednesday 11 August 2004 17:03, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
Somehow I trust the FSF legal counsel more than a set of developers trying
to interpret the fairly complex LGPL text.
Which, btw, happens to co-incide with the ASF legal counsel's view as well.
--
+--//---+
/
On Aug 11, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
So yes, we must remove Hibernate-related code from what we
redistribute from Spring.
I'm not even sure this is enough. It is from a purely legal POV, but it
might be confusing for users: unless we clearly state that Apache
Cocoon is protected by
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Steven Noels wrote:
ASF codebase, regardless of what the Hibernate folks state themselves.
Unelss they donate a second version of the code under a Software grant and
ongoing CLA - but i doubt that it would ever be clean enough for
incubation
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 11:18, Gianugo Rabellino ha scritto:
I'm not even sure this is enough. It is from a purely legal POV, but
it might be confusing for users: unless we clearly state that Apache
Cocoon is protected by the AL 2.0 if and only if you use the shipped
version of the Spring
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 11:18, Andrew Thornton ha scritto:
I'm really not sure how Spring decides which ORM backend is being
used. But I would be very surprised if it did it in some hardcoded
way.
src/org/springframework/orm/hibernate/HibernateTemplate.java:
import net.sf.hibernate.Criteria;
Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Aug 11, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
So yes, we must remove Hibernate-related code from what we
redistribute from Spring.
I'm not even sure this is enough. It is from a purely legal POV, but
it might be confusing for users: unless we clearly state that
On 11 Aug 2004, at 11:18, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Aug 11, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
So yes, we must remove Hibernate-related code from what we
redistribute from Spring.
I'm not even sure this is enough. It is from a purely legal POV, but
it might be confusing for users: unless
On 09 Aug 2004, at 21:53, Leszek Gawron wrote:
Let's imagine we base cocoon on spring. There was a discussion about
including hibernate in cocoon and it failed (licensing). Spring being
ASL 2.0 ships with hibernate library, even if not - it contains code
that was compiled against hibernate
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 11:48, Steven Noels ha scritto:
I reckon we won't be packaging the full Spring dist into Cocoon, no?
Just to be on the safe side, I removed spring-aop.jar and
aopalliance.jar from src/branches/butterfly/lib, since they are not
used at the moment. This leaves
Steven Noels dijo:
On 09 Aug 2004, at 21:53, Leszek Gawron wrote:
Let's imagine we base cocoon on spring. There was a discussion about
including hibernate in cocoon and it failed (licensing). Spring being
ASL 2.0 ships with hibernate library, even if not - it contains code
that was compiled
On Aug 11, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
On 11 Aug 2004, at 11:18, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
On Aug 11, 2004, at 10:53 AM, Steven Noels wrote:
So yes, we must remove Hibernate-related code from what we
redistribute from Spring.
I'm not even sure this is enough. It is from a purely legal
Ugo Cei wrote:
P.S.: this message imports classes from a library that is covered by
the LGPL, so it's probably safe to assume that it is covered by the
LGPL as well. If you are redistributing it or quoting it, make sure
that you comply with the terms of the license as laid out in
On Aug 11, 2004, at 5:18 AM, Gianugo Rabellino wrote:
* aopalliance/aopalliance.jar
- AOP Alliance 1.0 (http://aopalliance.sourceforge.net)
Originally released LGPL, I chatted with Rod Johnson about it several
months ago and he said he was changing the AOP Alliance license to BSD
or ASL.
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 11/ago/04, alle 01:37, Stefano Mazzocchi ha scritto:
Are they in trouble or are we wrong?
Nobody is in trouble (unless the hibernate people go after them, which
would be a pretty stupid thing to do anyway)
Stupid and counter to what they have publicly stated many times,
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Ugo Cei wrote:
Stupid and counter to what they have publicly stated many times, that
their own interpretation of the LGPL is that it is not viral.
However over the years we've not managed to get a public statement (or an
updated L-GPL license)
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
The FSF agenda is to drive all development into OSS, by forcing the choice of
economical OSS benefits vs costly in-house development.
Wrong. This is the OSI agenda, not the FSF one.
--
Stefano.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Il giorno 10/ago/04, alle 04:14, Vadim Gritsenko ha scritto:
even if not - it contains code that was compiled against hibernate
interfaces. Wouldn't this be an issue?
It would not be an issue as long as classes compiled against Hibernate
are not included into Spring JAR which is (in this
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Let's imagine we base cocoon on spring. There was a discussion about
including hibernate in cocoon and it failed (licensing). Spring being
ASL 2.0 ships with hibernate library, even if not - it contains code
that was compiled against hibernate interfaces. Wouldn't this be
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Let's imagine we base cocoon on spring. There was a discussion about
including hibernate in cocoon and it failed (licensing). Spring being
ASL 2.0 ships with hibernate library, even if not - it contains code
that was compiled against hibernate
Let's imagine we base cocoon on spring. There was a discussion about
including hibernate in cocoon and it failed (licensing). Spring being
ASL 2.0 ships with hibernate library, even if not - it contains code
that was compiled against hibernate interfaces. Wouldn't this be an issue?
--
Leszek
Leszek Gawron wrote:
Let's imagine we base cocoon on spring. There was a discussion about
including hibernate in cocoon and it failed (licensing). Spring being
ASL 2.0 ships with hibernate library
If it does, it means you have to agree to two licenses in order to use
Spring: ASL 2.0 and LGPL
33 matches
Mail list logo
