If going from GPL -> AL, then it would require that
each and every contributor to the GPL codebase would
need to certify that they approve a relicensing
from GPL to AL.
From AL->GPL is "easy"
The reverse is hard but do-able (since it requires
explicit contributor approval)
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11
On Apr 12, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Adrian Wiesmann wrote:
We can and should make it a standalone module within Cayenne. This
means a standalone Eclipse project, separate from the rest of the
framework.
OK, let's make nails with heads (as we say over here). Please make
this
split on the Cayenne s
Yeah - thanks for clarifying that Jim. I still don't have a 100%
certainty of how a GPL side of it should be handled, but I stand
corrected on the ASF side :-)
Andrus
On Apr 12, 2007, at 7:21 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
Thanks, Jim.
That's very helpful. I was under the impression that
> We can and should make it a standalone module within Cayenne. This
> means a standalone Eclipse project, separate from the rest of the
> framework.
OK, let's make nails with heads (as we say over here). Please make this
split on the Cayenne side. I can then get that new project via SVN.
Afterwar
Thanks, Jim.
That's very helpful. I was under the impression that GPL had
restrictions that would prevent this, but after reading through the
GPL again, I don't see anything that stands out. I guess it'd be the
same thing as the original contributor dual licensing the code since
there's nothi
On Apr 12, 2007, at 11:00 AM, Andrus Adamchik wrote:
On Apr 12, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 4/12/07, Adrian Wiesmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The technicaly easiest solution would be if Cayenne agrees in our
project
taking exlusively (and only for our SOBF Tool) the dat
On Apr 12, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Adrian Wiesmann wrote:
The legaly easiest solution would be to just extract the DataView from
Cayenne and create a new lib licenced under the ASL.
We can and should make it a standalone module within Cayenne. This
means a standalone Eclipse project, separate fro
On Apr 12, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
On 4/12/07, Adrian Wiesmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The technicaly easiest solution would be if Cayenne agrees in our
project
taking exlusively (and only for our SOBF Tool) the data view
source code
(and dvmodeler) and relicence it un
On 4/12/07, Adrian Wiesmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The technicaly easiest solution would be if Cayenne agrees in our project
taking exlusively (and only for our SOBF Tool) the data view source code
(and dvmodeler) and relicence it under the GPL. With the condition that we
dual-licence everyth
Andrus
> Per recent discussion on Apache Legal list [2], it is NOT OK to take
> Apache code and strip the license headers from it and relicense them
> as GPL.
That was not the plan. We would keep the licence an notices on all files
and just put these files directly into our own project. So our pr
Per recent discussion on Apache Legal list...
There's a nice illustration of OS licenses:
http://blogs.sun.com/chandan/entry/copyrights_licenses_and_cddl_illustrated
It would be nice if Apache would be also there :).
It also explains the "header problem with GPL" :).
Ahmed.
On Apr 12, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Adrian Wiesmann wrote:
My problem is less in dual licencing our changes than in
integrating the
DataViews (which is Apache licence) into our own tool (which is
GPL). But
as far as I see nobody from Cayenne has a problem with us doing so and
therefor I suggest tha
> You could still do your work in your own svn
> repository until you were ready to merge it if that was easiest for you.
I guess this is the best way. We copy the current status of DataViews into
our own project and feed changes back to Cayenne. There are still some
technical questions concerning
13 matches
Mail list logo
