On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:06, Henri Yandell wrote: > On 11/7/05, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I'm not sure it's important to Sun. To my knowledge the decision > > to move to apache was made by the Roller community and had nothing to do > > with Sun. > > > While not wanting to end up in a 'he-said, she-said'; I thought the > history was that the Roller chose not to join prior to Dave joining > Sun, but that Sun pointed out further advantages. One of these being > attention to legal issues, and the matter was rethought. I apologise > if I've got that wrong though, much of that is probably reading into > things being said. > > I just mailed concerning the issue being over ASF policy now; that > policy is most concerned with the rights of downstream users. ie) if a > company were to release a commercial version of the project, that the > LGPL usage wouldn't torpedo their desire to do so. >
I actually don't know anything about the connection between Sun and moving to Apache, I am really just a code monkey. However, I wouldn't have thought Sun would encourage us to move out of java.net. > > > That being said, I agree with Matt. I am just here to develop code and > > make the project better. From all the recent discussions it sounds like > > being part of Apache will force us to backtrack quite a bit for no good > > reason. So I agree that if we can't find a way to resolve the legal issues > > fairly easily then maybe we shouldn't be an Apache project yet. > > > Agreed. +1 :) What needs deciding is what we think 'fairly easily' is. > > Currently I see us needing to: > > 1) remove some jars from SVN and have Ant post a message to the user > asking them to put those files in place (with URLs). Not pretty, but > good and workable. this is really only a pain for us developers and something I'm sure we could live with. > > 2) do the same when installing a distribution a bummer, but would it be possible for us to package this stuff somewhere non-Apache like rollerweblogger.org and have an easy bundle for people to access? i.e. a Roller-1.3-dependencies.zip? > > 3) have a plan for required dependencies (namely Hibernate). JSR 220 > seems like a good eventual plan, we just have to get a feel for the > timing. We're already on the right version of Hibernate right? this is the part I have a problem with. I think Anil's points are exactly the same concerns I have. - how mature is JSR 220? do we really want to commit to it now even if we don't have to implement it until later in the year? - jdk 1.5? i think this would be a big no-no. i strongly disagree with requiring our users to be on the very latest jdk. i think we should be supporting the 2 latest jdk versions, which at this time is 1.4 and 1.5 - and even if we did agree on both of the above, we would have to go back and do a fairly significant amount of work just to change something that's already working just fine :( -- Allen > > Then we have to decide how long we release 'forks' at java.net and > when we can start to release at apache.org. 1.3 is looking like a > java.net; and it sounds like 2.0 wants to release very quickly so that > would imply java.net there too. > > So... is the above too far from 'fairly easily'? Should we be talking > about extracting to java.net, or about modifying things? > > Hen
