On 7/29/06, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is CDDL an issue? That was on Cliff's list of acceptable licenses. I wasn't sure which licenses were cool and which weren't. > Google also just announced that they're going to do hosting of open source > prrojects[1]. They are in the early days (don't even have infrastructure in > place for downloading releases yet), but it has some interesting ideas. If > you like labels in GMail, you'll like their approach to issue tracking. (By > the way, Greg Stein is the engineering manager at Google for this project.) I really like JIRA but I'd be curious to see what their alternative for issue tracking is. My instinct is to stick with a more established host since we'd like this to be available and we'd like it to be easy for people to access it. I'm not wild about Sourceforge. What do you think about java.net? I'm sure you investigated it when you were considering Shale options. By the way, are you aware of any Apache restrictions on using depedencies like Hibernate in Maven? It seems like excluding them from the default build would be a idiotic policy. With everyone switching to Maven now, it would just push projects that want to use Maven right out of the ASF.
Use ... as in a compile time only tool like JUnit ... is no problem. Distribute ... now that's the problem. The key issue is what downstream consumers of Apache software assume about the license of the software they downoad. What most people assume, and what we (Apache) *want* them to assume, is that the Apache Software License defines the set of obligations that the downstream user must comply with. For a license to be "compatible" (in the sense of Apache allowing our downloads to include that software) with ours, the "other" license must not impose significant requirements beyond what the Apache icense does. So, what does that mean in real life? GPL stuff is definitely out because of the virality (this is not a value judgement -- if your mission in open source is "freedom of access to the source code" there might well be a reason to use a GPL license ... but Apache tends to care more about "freedom of use"). LGPL code has been the subject of ***years*** of discussion that is only now being evolved towards a policy that *optional* dependencies on LGPL'd software is OK, at least for the short term. A Shale example featuring how well we integrate with Hibernate, unfortunately, does not qualify as an optional dependency. The place to get informed about Apache's policies on legal issues is < http://www.apache.org/legal>. For license compatibility in particular, check out <http://apache.org/legal/3party.html> (which is not quite yet final, but is de facto for current decisions).
I tried to register "shale" as a project, but they've got an interesting > twist in the signup process ... if you duplicate the name of an existing > SourceForge project, they ask the owner of that project for an ok (on the > theory that you might just be trying to do a "land grab" on the project > names. We could undoubltedly do "shale-goodies" or "shale-petstore" or > whatever there, if we wanted. Is Shale a sourceforge project?
There is a "shale" SourceForge project, but it is not us ... its a GTK based file manager for Linux.
Craig Sean
Craig
