In my opinion, the .NET community really lacks coordination right now
..
Which is something Apache does a terrific job at for the Java
open-source
community .
Gert
I agree with you Gert, there is a lot going on at Apache but you can
tell that there is one entity behind it all. I think the .NET
- Original Message -
From: Clayton Harbour [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Gert Driesen [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Stefan Bodewig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:53 PM
Subject: RE: [nant-dev] NAnt and Ant (was: Ready to tackle next release)
In my opinion,
Well, to be honest : I don't have a clue ... That's perhaps why we're still
stuck with the GPL license :-)
I am pretty sure the copyright holder can do whatever they want, so long as
they aren't bound to the gpl by other source code or libraries in the
application. NAnt may be bound to the
I would say that we should just leave the old code licensed under the old
license (not change any prev. distribution that is). Then we will go forward
with the new releases under the new license (since we are still pre-1.0). At
this point the copyright holders number just a few. I feel like we
NAnt may be bound to the gpl because of things like the sharpcvslib.
Sharpcvslib actually in effect has a license similar to lgpl. The
actual license agreement states that it is gpl however the exclusions
applied seem to indicate external applications can link to the library
without requiring
I'm not sure how copyright is determined, is it just code contribution?
I really like the BSD-style licenses, they don't seem to raise as many
alarm bells with organisations and from what I gather Microsoft's shared
source license is similar - but I am no lawyer.
