At 12:50 PM 6/4/01 +0100, Paul Hammant wrote:
>> >3) Modifications to GPL code (like other OSS licenses) must be
republished.
>>
>> Not all OSS or Free software licenses mandate republishing. (ie Apache).
>
>To a point. If you change an apache class then yes, but if you extend or
use it then replication
>is not necessary.
not sure what you mean. If you modify apache classes there is no license
clause that forces you to publish it. You can keep it private and sell it
as part of a "valued-added" product (ie Oracle did that with Apache
webserver and jserv I believe).
>> >4) GPL likes Xerces because Xerces implements a W3C interface (approved).
>> The linking of the
>> >Xerces classes is achieved through a factory that *could* have multiple
>> implementations (somthing
>> >the GPL likes very much). If you import any org.apache.* class (and other
>> utilities under many
>> >other OSI approved licenses) you are in breach of GPL.
>>
>> Actually xerces may not be used by GPL app even though it goes through a PD
>> interface. The exception is only allowed when it is considered hosted
>> component.
>
>>From what I have read, you can use Xerces in a GPL app, but not
distribute it. This is because
>the W3C licensed SAX API allows multiple implementations. As such the
person running a GPL app
>could choose to run Xerces instead of a GPL approved parser. The point
being that as long as the
>GPL app is not compiled against, or distributed with Xerces, it's not in
breach.
okay - that works for me ;)
>Would JDK 1.4's parser? Yes, as it's part of the JDK and hence appowed as
part of the "operating
>system" or "hosted environment" concessions. Weird. Sun have a far more
closed license than
>Apache, yet pass the GPL compatability test on the basis that they are
providing it as part of the
>JDK.
;)
>Never, I am very happy with the terms of the Apache license. What I am
peed off about is that the
>FSF maintains some "Any color you like as long as it is black" attidude to
(we'll say) 20 fine OSI
>approved licenses.
They are persistent ;) Maybe not completely coherent (LGPL interpretation
seems to vary depending on what project you are talking about).
>GPL is completely insane for toolkits, services and APIs. Its only
patronised by people that are
>new to the "cause" of open source, or those too proud to admin they have
made the wrong choice of
>open source license (the second half of that is paraphrasing your comments
Peter (entirely valid)
>during the spat with the JBoss people late last year).
You have to realize that when the GPL was born there was a very good reason
for making the choices it made. I agree 100% with those decisions at that
time. GPL serves the users at the expense of developers. In current times
there is still some reasons to use GPL. Mainly if a company does not want
to release code only to have market-savy competitiors repackage and resell it.
The other reason a lot of new comers use GPL is because of advertising
(they believe GPL==opensource) and they don't really understand
implications and actually believe some of the rhetoric spouted by 'anarhy r
us' type peeps.
>Anyway, I really think by a process of declaration and gap filling we
could grant Avalon the
>status of operating system, at least to the level that the JDK has been.
ApacheOS is born.
>Avalon plus beaucoup de hosted services. We have Cocoon, Locomotive, FTP,
James. In the wings are
>others, plus some of your glimmers like DNS and mine like Jesktop.
It is definetly something I have played with as an idea. One of the main
reasons I ended up getting involved with Ant was to play with idea of an
ant init system (first process in *nix systems) and also to rebuild my
cron/job/at server. I am also involved with Isolate JSR (basically fork for
java) which should be a step in right direction.
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 |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
