You raise interesting questions. The licensing wars are indeed getting tiresome. Nevertheless, qualifying the Apache license as viral is highly inaccurate. The ASF asks you to adopt the Apache Software License if you decide to live under its roof. That is the rule.
If I decide to live under its roof, then there isn't a problem. It is when I'd rather not do that when there is a problem. And Apache won't work with me at all if I use other certain licenses even though I am open source and have the same ultimate goals as Apache. I also can't use the Apache license outside of Apache's walls (or do I have that part wrong?).
The proposal was for the Logging Services project to be part of Apache. What, you are suggesting is a different proposal altogether. Not a bad proposal per se, but a different one nonetheless. Let us concentrate on the current proposal.
Fair enough. It's just that any project that wishes to participate in this effort must change their license to suite Apache's rules instead of allowing diverse groups to work together with a common goal, but not necessarily a common license. I think that proposal might be more useful. It almost seems monopolistic for Apache to set its rules up like this. Not that anyone is physically forced to deal with Apache, but as its products become ubiquitous, it becomes almost necessary to conform to Apache's way. I can envision a theoretical domino effect happening here of which the end result is a monopoly in the open source industry.
Anyway, I'll stop there.
Jake
At 08:33 AM 12/12/2003 -0600, Jacob Kjome wrote:At 12:34 PM 12/12/2003 +0100, you wrote:Please note that joining the Logging Services project would necessarily mean changing your existing license to the Apache Software License.
I know licences like GPL and LGPL have been said to be "viral", but isn't Apache being a bit viral? The Apache point of view says "join us or go away". It compels other projects to join if they want to participate at all. I would think the ideal license would recognize that this is all open source and be welcoming of lot of different projects, not just those belonging to one organization. I'm sure there are lots of details dealing with licensing that I'm missing, but the whole open source "my license is better than yours" infighting is getting tiresome. Seriously, can't people just figure out that the whole idea of an open source license serves, essentially, two purposes?:
1. Protect the developers from liability. 2. Protect the source from being stolen and patented by evil corporations.
That's pretty much it. The goal is to foster an environment where code can be written and shared for the common good without worry.
Note that a non-goal is:
3. Make sure we discriminate against all other open source projects that don't conform to our very explicit and strict rules.
Apache seems to serve all three purposes when it should only be serving the first two.
Thoughts?
Jake
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Ceki Gülcü
For log4j documentation consider "The complete log4j manual" ISBN: 2970036908 http://www.qos.ch/shop/products/clm_t.jsp
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
