Re: [fyi] apache ego massage
One thing the article doesn't mention is that Britannica has three Apache committers and some contributors too. Committed to open source since 1768 (or thereabouts). Top that! ;) - Morgan --- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://java.sun.com/features/2003/02/britannica.html > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate > [William of Ockham] > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > = Morgan Delagrange http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs http://jakarta.apache.org/commons http://axion.tigris.org http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Prof Eben Moglen on L/GPL and jars]
Roy T. Fielding wrote: Is this clarification sufficient? If not, what more do we require? No. What the FSF needs to say is that inclusion of the external interface names (methods, filenames, imports, etc.) defined by an LGPL jar file, so that a non-LGPL jar can make calls to the LGPL jar's implementation, does not cause the including work to be derived from the LGPL work even though java uses late-binding by name (requiring that names be copied into the derived executable), and thus does not (in and of itself) cause the package as a whole to be restricted to distribution as (L)GPL or as open source per section 6 of the LGPL. A very clear statement on the issue. I was still missing the "...names be copied..." part to fully understand the difference between C and java to this regards. I see why there are heavy legal issues. I'll CC: Andy, who insisted a lot in the httpd case and is not subscribed here. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] daedalus jar repository (was: primary distribution location)
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, Conor MacNeill wrote: > Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > > +1. I see nothing wrong with the plan. Hopefully Ant can be made smart > > enough to pull the jars down from mirrors, too. > > > > Patches always welcome, Brian :-) The mirror CGI script should be able to handle this fairly easily. It could be adapted, for example, to send an HTTP redirect to an appropriate mirror when a request for http://www.apache.org/dyn/go.cgi/java-respistory/dist/file.jar is received. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Fwd: Prof Eben Moglen on L/GPL and jars]
Is this clarification sufficient? If not, what more do we require? No. What the FSF needs to say is that inclusion of the external interface names (methods, filenames, imports, etc.) defined by an LGPL jar file, so that a non-LGPL jar can make calls to the LGPL jar's implementation, does not cause the including work to be derived from the LGPL work even though java uses late-binding by name (requiring that names be copied into the derived executable), and thus does not (in and of itself) cause the package as a whole to be restricted to distribution as (L)GPL or as open source per section 6 of the LGPL. Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Prof Eben Moglen on L/GPL and jars]
Is this clarification sufficient? If not, what more do we require? If there is a list of unowned todos to be resolved, I'll follow up on them. Original Message Subject: Prof Eben Moglen on L/GPL and jars Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:59:02 -0800 (PST) From: J Aaron Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Jakarta General List" To: general@jakarta.apache.org With all the discussion about licensing with LGPL stuff, I thought this might be interesting to everyone. Comes from the new Slashdot interview with Eben Moglen. (http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/03/02/20/1544245.shtml?tid=117&tid=123) 2) Clarifying the GPL by sterno One issue that I know has come up for me is how the GPL applies in situations where I'm using GPL software but I'm not actually modifying it. For example, I write a Java application, and it is reliant on a JAR that is GPL'd. Do I then need to GPL my software? I haven't changed the JAR in anyway, I'm just redistributing it with my software. The end user could just as easily download the JAR themselves, it's just a convenience for me to offer it in my package. Eben: The language or programming paradigm in use doesn't determine the rules of compliance, nor does whether the GPL'd code has been modified. The situation is no different than the one where your code depends on static or dynamic linking of a GPL'd library, say GNU readline. Your code, in order to operate, must be combined with the GPL'd code, forming a new combined work, which under GPL section 2(b) must be distributed under the terms of the GPL and only the GPL. If the author of the other code had chosen to release his JAR under the Lesser GPL, your contribution to the combined work could be released under any license of your choosing, but by releasing under GPL he or she chose to invoke the principle of "share and share alike." --- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[fyi] apache ego massage
http://java.sun.com/features/2003/02/britannica.html -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [proposal] daedalus jar repository (was: primary distribution location)
Brian Behlendorf wrote: +1. I see nothing wrong with the plan. Hopefully Ant can be made smart enough to pull the jars down from mirrors, too. Patches always welcome, Brian :-) Conor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
