On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 02:17:03PM -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> My 2 cents, As a committer on the most forked SOAP engine on the
> planet (Apache Axis -
> http://wiki.apache.org/ws/FrontPage/Axis/AxisBeingUsed)..i can safely
> say that this is why i keep working on Apache stuff, you never know
My 2 cents, As a committer on the most forked SOAP engine on the
planet (Apache Axis -
http://wiki.apache.org/ws/FrontPage/Axis/AxisBeingUsed)..i can safely
say that this is why i keep working on Apache stuff, you never know
where your code will turn up next. For example
(http://www.hpsearch.org/d
Anthony,
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 11:03:44PM -0800, Anthony Green wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> > I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is
> > that it might
> > be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seem
Fred Fox wrote:
>>I don't
>>care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
>>to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
>>restrictions that that entails.
>
>
> The day you don't just want to link proprietary code, but want to make a
> propriet
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 06:20:18PM -0500, Fred Fox wrote:
> > I don't
> > care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
> > to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
> > restrictions that that entails.
>
> The day you don't just want to link p
On Dec 3, 2005, at 5:23 PM, David N. Welton wrote:
Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that
you
get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different
from
noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
download that aren't under the s
> I don't
> care how 'free java' is licensed, as long as I can link proprietary code
> to it if needs be, and it frees me from using Sun's java, and all the
> restrictions that that entails.
The day you don't just want to link proprietary code, but want to make a
proprietary modification to Grego
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 11:23:02PM +0100, David N. Welton wrote:
> Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that you
> get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different from
> noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
> download that are
Perhaps the difference is that with the bits and pieces of gcc that you
get, you don't even realize that you have them, which is different from
noting that you have several .jar files floating around in your
download that aren't under the same terms as the rest of the code.
As far as I'm concerne
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 07:32:15PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> >I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking exception
> >as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made using gcc
> >that are
> >distributed from Apache.org anyway, a
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 02:19:15PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 3, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> >
> >I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking
> >exception
> >as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made
> >using gcc that a
On Dec 3, 2005, at 12:01 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking
exception
as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made
using gcc that are
distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship gcc-
compiled
binari
Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'd like to see the ASF allow use of code under the GPL+linking exception
as well, as that is necessary for the Apache httpd builds made using gcc that
are
distributed from Apache.org anyway, and would allow us to ship gcc-compiled
binaries of Harmony. Someone tell the htt
ROTECTED]>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Full disclosure
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 09:01:37 -0800
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:24:10PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > Anthony Green wrote:
> >
> > >But what would be the point of a relicensing effor
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 08:11:22PM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> >>
> >>Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
> >>that to happen,
> >>and get us roll
On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 04:24:10PM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Anthony Green wrote:
>
> >But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this? AFAICT,
> >many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
> >class library project.
>
> uh? nobody ever mentioned tha
On Dec 2, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
that to happen,
and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching t
On Dec 2, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Elliott Draper wrote:
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
*snip*
Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince
people to relicense.
*snip*
Perhaps this is one of those times? I don't wish to negate the
valiant efforts of those trying to resolve the li
Anthony Green wrote:
But what would be the point of a relicensing effort like this? AFAICT,
many people here show no interest in collaborating on a single free
class library project.
uh? nobody ever mentioned that harmony was about "a single free class
library project".
I, personally, don'
Anthony Green wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
>>Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
>>that to happen,
>>and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
>
>
> Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching to LGPL+exception
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
*snip*
Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince people to
relicense.
*snip*
Perhaps this is one of those times? I don't wish to negate the valiant
efforts of those trying to resolve the licensing issues, but I think
that as an aside, maybe it
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 10:47 -0800, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
> Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for
> that to happen,
> and get us rolling forward in that aspect as well.
Rather than dual license the code, maybe switching to LGPL+exception
would be better. The GNU FOO+
relicense or even simply dual license itself as LGPL,
> it would make it possible to *automatically* have Harmony use that
> licensing bridge without further legal issues.
Yup. I think dual licensing with the LGPL should be sufficient for that to
happen,
and get us rolling forward in that
On Dec 1, 2005, at 11:43 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Sometimes, it's easier to rewrite some code than to convince people
to relicense.
Sometimes, it's easier to relicense some code than to convince
people that mixing two licenses is: a) legal and b) useful for
their ultimate goal.
des (yes,
they exist), but it will take some time nevertheless.
If (and I say *IF*, I'm not suggesting anything to anybody) GNU
Classpath was to relicense or even simply dual license itself as LGPL,
it would make it possible to *automatically* have Harmony use that
licensing bridge w
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 07:16 -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> I didn't take notes but one of the many things I took away from this is that
> it might
> be a real good idea to try and see if classpath can be LGPLed; Mark seemed to
> think
> that is not an unattainable goal. When I get my hands on some sp
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 08:52:59PM +0100, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> >
> >Isn't everything within cycling distance in .nl anyway? :)
> >
>
> I challenge you to prove that by cycling from Leo's place to my place ;)
>
I am afraid that would end just like the Opera dude's swim across the
Atlantic
Isn't everything within cycling distance in .nl anyway? :)
I challenge you to prove that by cycling from Leo's place to my place ;)
Mvgr,
Martin
El lun, 28-11-2005 a las 08:41 -0800, Dalibor Topic escribió:
> Isn't everything within cycling distance in .nl anyway? :)
Not really, some things are withing walking distance, IIRC :)
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 07:16:14AM -0800, Leo Simons wrote:
> Hi gang!
>
> I had dinner with Mark (Wielaard) last week. Indonesian food. We talked.
> Quite a bit
> about Harmony, actually. It was fun. Afterwards we had only two beers each
> (though 3
> out of 4 were Belgian), for which I apologi
On Nov 28, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
Hi gang!
I had dinner with Mark (Wielaard) last week. Indonesian food. We
talked. Quite a bit
about Harmony, actually. It was fun. Afterwards we had only two
beers each (though 3
out of 4 were Belgian), for which I apologize, but it was a
T
Hi gang!
I had dinner with Mark (Wielaard) last week. Indonesian food. We talked. Quite
a bit
about Harmony, actually. It was fun. Afterwards we had only two beers each
(though 3
out of 4 were Belgian), for which I apologize, but it was a Thursday and we
both had
lots of stuff to do on the Frid
32 matches
Mail list logo
