At 06:21 27/2/01 -0800, Sam Ruby wrote:
>Peter Donald wrote:
>>
>> In short it is not the responsibility of the PMC to accept or not
>> accept dual licensing. It is a responsibility of the apache members
>> foundation-wide (as they are the copyright owners).
>
>The ASF board would expect the PMCs to work licensing issues.
yer? I didn't think that would be legal ;) I expect that it would have to
be validated by the board (and thus the members) to be activated or am I
missing something ?
>> I suspect that this wouldn't occur although I hope that the next
>> version of APL and next version of GPL could be interoperable.
>
>IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. But I have seen quite a few good people
>try to resolve what appears on the surface to be a deceptively simply
>issue, and fail. Significant attempts have been made, but each time
>objections have been addressed, new ones have been raised.
Yep I see that too ;( GNUs stance is never to compromise which means that
the only way for APL to fit in is to remove advertising/name clauses which
is unfortunately where one of Apaches strengths are ;(
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
