I'll make an email asking for an ASL version agreement.
I'll let you know.
Sylvain.
On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 19:02 +0100, Martin Marinschek wrote:
Unfortunately the two licences are not compatible - we have had this discussion before, and this is why we have the calendar as is, that one was licensed under a very unrestrictive license (the main difference to the LGPL is that under the LGPL, all changes to the source base need to be given back to the source base, if I remember correctly.) You could always go and ask the developer, though, if he would either change the license to the ASL or if he would give out a version under the ASL. regards, Martin On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 12:45:26 -0500, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I always thought it would be nice to provide a few different styles of > calendars. Here is the one we use now in our current application > (we've made some configuration changes so its not exactly the same): > > http://www._javascript_kit.com/script/script2/timestamp.shtml > > This is also a nice one: > > http://_javascript_.internet.com/calendars/date-picker.html > > sean > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:34:27 -0600, Heath Borders > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If it isn't, we could just make a JSF wrapper to utilize the existing > > code. Then if people wanted to use it, they could access that code > > separately. Of course, this would be a lot more work, and might not > > be worth it if this wasn't a phenomenally better calendar. > > > > > > On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:27:21 -0400, Sylvain Vieujot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've found this http://www.dynarch.com/projects/calendar/ (popup) calendar, > > > that looks quite better than the one we're using now. > > > > > > It's released under the LGPL. > > > Does anyone know if it's ok to unclude LGLP code in Apache licensed projects > > > ? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Sylvain. > > > > -- > > -Heath Borders-Wing > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >
