> > The discussion ended when someone mentioned that because > > OpenCMS uses the GNU GPL license and all Apache software must > > use the Apache license that OpenCMS could not be used. > > > > I'm suprised no one thought to ask if Alkacon would consider > > licensing OpenCMS under the APL as well as GPL, that would > > allow Jetspeed to create and distribute a portal > > implementation using OpenCMS.
LGPL libraries are NOT allowed in ASF projects. LGPL is considered to be just as viral as GPL when it concerns the java language. This is due to java's dynamic linking nature. It has to due with section 6 of the LGPL license. Read Andrew's BLOG on this: http://linuxintegrators.com/hl30/blog/general/?permalink=LGPL+clarification.html *===================================* * Scott T Weaver������������������� * * Jakarta Jetspeed Portal Project�� * * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *===================================* � > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 10:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: FW: Jetspeed and OpenCMS > > Attached is an email conversation I had with Alexander Kandzior from > OpenCMS. I've since then learned that because OpenCMS 5 requires jre 1.4, > I > can't use it for the project I was hoping to use it on; as well Jetspeed > supports 1.3 - so it would not be ideal IMO to try to use some of opencms > in > jetspeed core to provide cms services at least not at this time, perhaps > in > the future. > But here is the email thread for those interested: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Kandzior [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:02 AM > To: 'Tim Reilly' > Subject: RE: Jetspeed and OpenCMS > > > Hi Tim, > > > Two JSR's are coming along that should make integrating > > various CMS services and portals easier. The portlet JSR > > (JSR-168) should be released for public review sometime soon. > > Also, JSR-170 seems promising in terms of standardizing > > content retrieval services. (It also is advertising July 03 > > for the public review.) > > I am a member of the JSR 170 export group ;-) The 170 spec evolves very > quickley now. As soon as JSR 170 will settle to be in a "release > candidate" status we will implement level 1 of the spec in OpenCms. JSR > 170 level 2 support will probably take a bit longer but is also planned. > > > > So really I agree with you very much that a group of portlets > > could be developed to interface with OpenCMS. Jetspeed 2 will > > follow the JSR-168 spec. which defines a standard way to > > deploy portlets; similar to a war file. When that is > > available, it will be much easier to add new portlets to the > > portal container and the need to distribute portlets with the > > main jetspeed distribution will be less of an issue (although > > having a built in CMS would be nice.) It should also, > > hopefully allow portlets to work in various vendors portal > > servers (such as jetspeed2, Websphere Portal Server, Oracle > > Portal, Sun's portal, etc.) > > That sure sounds like a good approach. We will support this as much as > we can with our available resources. > > > Would you mind if I post our email thread here on the > > jetspeed list? > > No, of course not. > > All the best, > > Alexander Kandzior > > ------------------- > > Alkacon Software > Alexander Kandzior > Eugen-Langen-Str. 8 > 50968 Koeln, DE > > Tel: +49 (0)221 3797540 > Fax: +49 (0)221 3797541 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.alkacon.com > > Hi Alexander, > > Sorry to take so long to reply. > I didn't mean to imply that OpenCMS could, or should be moved over as an > apache group project. I think - based on the thread in the mailing list - > that there was some interest in adding the OpenCMS or some other CMS > provider's classes to the jetspeed core services classes in some form or > another. I really don't understand what (in terms of licensing) prevents > that from happening? I might ask around so that I understand the reason > someone mentioned a conflict. But anyhow... > > Two JSR's are coming along that should make integrating various CMS > services > and portals easier. The portlet JSR (JSR-168) should be released for > public > review sometime soon. Also, JSR-170 seems promising in terms of > standardizing content retrieval services. (It also is advertising July 03 > for the public review.) > > So really I agree with you very much that a group of portlets could be > developed to interface with OpenCMS. Jetspeed 2 will follow the JSR-168 > spec. which defines a standard way to deploy portlets; similar to a war > file. When that is available, it will be much easier to add new portlets > to > the portal container and the need to distribute portlets with the main > jetspeed distribution will be less of an issue (although having a built in > CMS would be nice.) It should also, hopefully allow portlets to work in > various vendors portal servers (such as jetspeed2, Websphere Portal > Server, > Oracle Portal, Sun's portal, etc.) > > Would you mind if I post our email thread here on the jetspeed list? > Perhaps > others would be interested. One of the difficult issues is that everyone > has > their own preference for CMS services, so it may end up that CMS services > that are distributed with jetspeed are written from scratch, or use > another > CMS system's classes, but it wouldn't hurt to post our email on the list > for > further discussion. > > Thanks, > Tim Reilly > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Kandzior [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 7:43 AM > To: 'Tim Reilly' > Subject: RE: Jetspeed and OpenCMS > > > Dear Tim, > > I am certainly aware of the Jetspeed project. It would be great if > Jetspeed and OpenCms could cooperate. > > About the licensing requirement: We actually use the LGPL (not the GPL). > The way you describe it, it sounds almost as if the APL is more > restrictive then the original GPL. This is certainly not so since I know > the APL quite well and the text does not mention this. > > It is true that the Apache Foundation only accepts new projects if they > use the APL. But I do not think that the Apache Foundation is even > interested in having OpenCms placed under their umbrella. They already > got two systems that claim to be CMS systems. So OpenCms most likley > will stay as a separate project. I'm not saying that I wouln't consider > moving to Apache but this step would certainly be not easy. > > I do not see a licensing problem cooperating with Jetspeed. Obviously, > such a cooperation would be in a way that OpenCms / Jetspeed sync their > APIs so that the systems can be installed and cooperate easily. This can > certainly be done even without OpenCms being a Apache Project. > > Again, I am very interested in such a cooperation. > > All the best, > > Alexander Kandzior > > ------------------- > > Alkacon Software > Alexander Kandzior > Eugen-Langen-Str. 8 > 50968 Koeln, DE > > Tel: +49 (0)221 3797540 > Fax: +49 (0)221 3797541 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://www.alkacon.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim Reilly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 5:21 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Jetspeed and OpenCMS > > > > > > I'm not sure if your aware of the Jetspeed project from > > Apache Software Foundation. I'm on the Jetspeed-developer > > mailing list and recently someone suggested using OpenCMS for > > Content Management services within Jetspeed (an Open Source > > Portal and the JSR-168 reference implementation.) > > > > The discussion ended when someone mentioned that because > > OpenCMS uses the GNU GPL license and all Apache software must > > use the Apache license that OpenCMS could not be used. > > > > I'm suprised no one thought to ask if Alkacon would consider > > licensing OpenCMS under the APL as well as GPL, that would > > allow Jetspeed to create and distribute a portal > > implementation using OpenCMS. > > > > I think it would be mutually beneficial to both Jetspeed and OpenCMS. > > > > Thanks > > Let me know your thoughts > > > > -Tim Reilly > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
