On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote:
On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
DESCRIPTION
* There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing
stdcxx under a
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:06 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2012, at 9:51 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote:
On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
DESCRIPTION
* There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
a rationale for
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielski j...@jagunet.com wrote:
Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx
is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs
cannot use and link to it because the FSF says that the ALv2
is incompatible w/
On 09/13/12 11:40 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Sep 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Jim Jagielskij...@jagunet.com wrote:
Is this all about your point of view that even though Apache stdcxx
is designed as a library, esp as a system library, that GPLv2 programs
cannot use and link to it because the FSF says
On 09/13/12 07:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to
verify something in the GPLv2?
No - We want to discuss the Apache foundation transferring their rights
granted under the contributor agreement to another open source foundation.
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:12 PM, C. Bergström
cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote:
[System lib exception was of course brought up during the BSD discussion,
but it was said that system libraries are usually shipped by default with
the system. This may not always be the case with STDCXX.]
In order
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:24 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote:
On 09/13/12 07:43 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Is that the actionable item of which you speak? You want the ASF to verify
something in the GPLv2?
No - We want to discuss the Apache foundation transferring their rights
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:12 PM, C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote:
We appreciate you telling the choir, but it doesn't help resolve this. How
to best proceed? Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something
else?
Why? What are you looking for? And who is the expected
Sorry. I've been Reply-All'ing.
On Sep 13, 2012, at 1:31 PM, Doug Cutting cutt...@apache.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:12 AM, C. Bergström
cbergst...@pathscale.com wrote:
Is legal-discuss the best way to go forward or something else?
I'm not sure what the question is, but it
On 09/12/12 05:39 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
DESCRIPTION
* There was some licensing FUD discussed on the list, mostly to promote
a rationale for moving the project elsewhere and/or releasing
stdcxx under a different license. This has (hopefully) been clarified.
You willfully ignore the
10 matches
Mail list logo
