Isn't this missing the whole point of the current licensing discussion? If we cook up a system that allows us to create and distribute cocoon but that product now cannot be used to build a commercial application without questions of further license requirements (source code availability, etc.) have we served our users well?
That's exactly the problem I have with this library system. Isn't Apache stuff that common because of its ease of use? I don't want to do license checking for every dependent project I get from somewhere. Moving this to the users is just a poor move and should be avoided if possible. It's not just about downloading one more JAR.
Well, AFAIU they will only run into the same legal hassle if they try to *redistribute* cocoon as a whole!! So no problem for the simple user.
Is a company using Cocoon to deliver web applications redistributing Cocoon? (yes, I think). Then from what I can tell, a good portion of even our own committers, not to mention people on the users list would have a problem.
If it's really a problem for the ones distributing is still the question anyway (I doubt it) But this way it's not the ASF that would have to take the responsibility for that.
I guess that's the point
Yes, that's the point indeed. ASL is supposed to be a business-friendly license. If Cocoon uses distribution-time tricks to technically comply with the ASL but in the process nullifies its intent for some users, we have failed IMO.
Geoff
