Fernando Nasser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Nic Ferrier wrote: >> If MX4J was dual licenced (maybe with the LGPL) I would help fix it. >> > > Let me see if I understood what you are saying. You say you don't want > to contribute to an Open Source project if it is under the APL, is that > right?
Yes. I would be happy to help if MX4J was dual licenced. > I would be interested in knowing what are your reasons for that. In general I don't work on open source projects. I work on free software ones. I work for GNU. I try, whenever possible, to benefit the GNU project. APL code cannot be used with GPL code. LGPL code can (even if it is also licenced under the APL). I don't have much time to spend on free software, I have 3 small children and a large dog who take up a lot of my time, so when I choose to help I do so very selectively. > Several of us have been lately trying to get the scatered open source > developers working on separate and ailing projects to join forces, share > code etc. We are encountering resistency from some people to > incorporate LGPL code in their APL/BSD code base (haven't yet > encountered the opposite -- it seems fine to add APL/BSD code to LGPL > projects). Although I myself claimed in a meeting that I and some other > O.S. developers had a preference to contribute under the GPL, I did not > think it would go as far as not be willing to contribute at all. It does in my case. I am very selective about who I help. I have often found it to be the case where ASF programmers will not contibute to GPL or LGPL projects. I don't see why my reaction is suprising. -- Nic Ferrier http://www.tapsellferrier.co.uk _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
