Every time I hear that the APL (or any other permissive open source license) is not compatible with the GPL my hair stands. So RMS decided that the APL and the GPL are incompatible. No one seems to challenge that. Why are the GPL and APL incompatible? Really, why? The GNU site (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses) declares that the APL as incompatible saying the it has unacceptable requirements. I wonder which requirements they are referring to. Does anyone know?
The number of people who really understand open source licensing is probably fewer than the number of scholars who understand general relativity. Does it all boil down to two egos (RMS/ESR)? Ceki
At 11:54 18.01.2001 -0800, you wrote:
on 1/18/01 11:32 AM, "Steve Loughran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I correct in my belief that were a java style ant task to be made part > of the Java style distribution, and not ant, there would be no issues?
100%.
> If that were the the case then the solution to the problem would be "add the
> ant task to the style libraries" and be done with it. Same for some means of
> invoking ant from within Jedit. (has anyone scripted that yet?)
Yes. I agree...in fact, this brings up the issues of which tasks should be included with Ant and which shouldn't...If project == OSS, then I personally feel that tasks should belong closest with their projects...
-jon
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Freedom as in the capacity to exercise choice.
