At 10:43 6/12/00 -0800, you wrote: >On 12/6/00 5:42 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Well not about that but more due to legal thing. I would never touch >> something that has Suns license attached. > >You must be referring to the javax.xml.* classes, right?
Not all of them - just the 5-6 in javax.xml.parser.* but if you say it is fine then I gonna upgrade a whole heap of projects to jaxp1.1 and claim you represented sun and allowed it ;) (I been wanting to do it for ages instead using custom factories ;-]) >> I thought Apache had a clean tree >> policy - ie only Apache copyright source is allowed to exist in CVS. > >Apache only *works* on Apache copyright code. Our experience with code that >we have to lean on is that we do what we can how we can. Okay - does that mean I can check in code that isn't owned by Apache. There is a few - their licenses allow it and I am trying to clone behaviour in their system. It is just taking forever because I have to do it by myself - thou if I could put it in CVS someone else may pick up the banner ;) It would also open up the oportunity for the log4j guys to put it in CVS and gradually remove the IPL bits? I guess I was under a different impression and I just told Ceki that Apache wouldn't accept IBM owned code so he had to rewrite it but if not ... Cheers, Pete *-----------------------------------------------------* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-----------------------------------------------------*
