Richard S. Hall wrote: > p.s. If you haven't already done so, fill out an ICLA and fax and/or > mail it in so that you can easily participate in the > future...http://www.apache.org/licenses/#clas
Whilst an ICLA would help, it isn't a clincher. Having a patch supplied via JIRA where the 'I grant this code' tickbox is ticked would actually be enough. Having an ICLA would be more thorough though. Regards, Upayavira > Jan S. Rellermeyer wrote: >> I have used both versions of kXML in past projects. If you agree, I >> will try to port it to the new version over the weekend. >> Jan. >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> ETH Zurich, MSc Jan S. Rellermeyer, Information and Communication >> Systems Research Group (IKS), Department of Computer Science, IFW B >> 47.1, Haldeneggsteig 4, CH–8092 Zürich >> Tel +41 44 632 30 38, http://www.iks.inf.ethz.ch >> ----------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Richard S. Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, >>> July 11, 2006 10:52 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: KXML License >>> >>> I agree that we have two options: >>> >>> 1. Nuking SB from the repo. >>> 2. Porting SB to kxml2. >>> >>> Since our SCR impl uses kxml2 and is simply a modified version of SB, >>> it seems like it would be simple to modify SB to use kxml2...the main >>> issue is finding someone who has the time to do it. I know Humberto >>> is very busy at this point in time... >>> >>> -> richard >>> >>> Marcel Offermans wrote: >>> >>>> From memory, the service binder is currently the only one >>> still using >>>> kXML 1.x (which has this "problematic" license). Several >>> other bundles >>>> have already been migrated to kXML 2.x (which has a different >>>> license). I have no experience with either version of the >>> library, so >>>> I don't know if it is easy to migrate from 1.x to 2.x but I >>> do believe >>>> that is the way to go. Perhaps Humberto or Richard can have >>> a look at >>>> this (or somebody else with kXML experience)? >>>> >>>> On Jul 10, 2006, at 23:49 , Upayavira wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I am concerned about the license for KXML, which I believe we use. >>>>> >>>>> From my uneducated reading of the below clause [1] (which is taken >>>>> from Enhydra 1.0, I can't yet find a copy of 1.1), we cannot use >>>>> KXML, as it places a requirement upon us that we offer >>> modifications >>>>> public and notifying the originator. This is a requirement >>> on top of >>>>> those in the ASL and is therefore not compatible. >>>>> >>>>> So, how do we deal with this? How possible is it to >>> replace KXML with >>>>> something else, assuming my interpretation is correct? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, Upayavira >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> 3.2. Availability of Source Code. >>>>> Any Modification which You create or to which You >>> contribute must be >>>>> made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License >>>>> either on the same media as an Executable version or via >>> an accepted >>>>> Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an >>>>> Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic >>>>> Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve >>>>> (12) months after the date it initially became available, >>> or at least >>>>> six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular >>>>> Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are >>>>> responsible for notifying the Initial Developer of the >>> Modification >>>>> and the location of the Source Code if a contact means is >>> provided. >>>>> Lutris will be acting as maintainer of the Source Code and may >>>>> provide an Electronic Distribution mechanism for the >>> Modification to >>>>> be made available. You can contact Lutris to make the Modification >>>>> available and to notify the Initial Developer. >>>>> (http://www.lutris.com/) >>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >
