On Saturday 30 July 2005 02:13, Michael A. Olson wrote:
> We don't have the "no additional restrictions"
> language
> that appears in the GPL, and specifically without limitations on
> patents. So,
> from a straight legal perspective, putting Berkeley DB and some Apache
> Licensed software toge
Hello,
I just built and deployed the release for ApacheDS 0.9.1. The source
and binary distros are available here:
http://www.apache.org/dist/directory/
It might take a while for this to propagate to all the mirrors. The
jars have also been put into the Apache java-repository which synchs
Ok its time to tally up the votes and cut this release:
+1 had 8 votes
0 none
-1 none
I'll try to cut the release tonight.
Alex
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Wednesday 27 July 2005 08:31, Alex Karasulu wrote:
-1 [] Reject this release
0 [] Indifferent
+1[X] Approve the release
Releas
On Jul 29, 2005, at 11:06 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
And for ALv2 it is about the patent grants and license termination.
(Personally, I don't understand the usa case that FSF Legal Counsel is
constructing, but it looks very bizarre, as it involves the patent
owner to
license code covered by th
Vinod Panicker wrote:
snip...
We are using the 0.9 stream because it has a much cleaner API. I
think that MINA has excellent potential to be the cornerstone of any
Network enabled java application. IMO it should be provided more
resources and promoted to TLP.
I would agree with you on this
On Saturday 30 July 2005 01:14, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> GPL says that no
> other license can place restrictions or requirements on code
> that the GPL does not already place on it (think of the
> old AL and the "advertising clause")
And for ALv2 it is about the patent grants and license termination
On Jul 26, 2005, at 1:28 AM, Alex Karasulu wrote:
This is unfortunately true. However GPLed code can use Apache
licenced products I thought. INAL so I would not know. Is it
actually the case?
There is nothing in the AL which would prevent GPL code from using
Apache
licensed code
On Jul 25, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Michael A. Olson wrote:
All,
Let me begin by pointing out what may be obvious -- there's no
issue of compatibility between the Apache License 2.0 and the
Sleepycat Public License. The Sleepycat license was designed to be
identical in effect with the GPL.
On Jul 24, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Rex Wang wrote:
If Company A were to modify the Apache Directory Server, or to
extract Java Edition code from ADS for use in another
application, and wanted to redistribute the modified ADS or
other application to a 3rd party, then Company A would either
have to m
