Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: on 2/22/01 2:58 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it is worth while to make the argument that as long as it is *either* GPL or APL the license can still be under Apache. Why??? You can still use the APL as much as you want... the only thing we are allowing is that now the GPL camp can use our software. Kevin No offense Kevin, but that is a really bad argument to state in this camp. :-) The simple reason being that people in the GPL camp CAN use and distribute our software without any real restrictions. No... they can't. I can't use the Servlet API from Tomcat within a GPL product... It is the fact that BSD zealots (including myself mind you) I am a BSD zealot too :). Also a GPL zealot. It is just case dependent :) cannot use GPL software in conjunction with BSD software that is the issue. Dual licensing the code isn't the solution because it is a hack to work around the larger issue...which is the viral nature of the GPL and is something that I fundamentally don't believe in. The viral issue won't ever be resolved. I think this is the Zen of the issue. Just deal with it. :). GPL won't be going away any time soon. The point is that you can still use you BSD license jon. :). I can use the LGPL license if I want to write code for GPL projects. Not only that but it doesn't spawn wars like KDE vs GNOME which just wind up hurting everyone. The solution is simply putting a less restrictive license on the software in the first place ah. this is a HUGE bag of worms. What does "less restrictive" mean? Putting on my GPL hat I would say that the BSD license is more restrictive because it doesn't give me (the author) rights over derivative works. Putting on my BSD hat I would say that the GPL is more restrictive because it requires that everyone release source code for products even if they don't want to. ... the truth is somewhere in between. I think Dual Licensing solves the issue. You get your BSD and I get my GPL :) :) :) and understanding that there is no need to force people to release changes to your source code into the larger community because if you have a decent community in the first place, the changes to the software will come back on its own eventually regardless of the license. snip ah. no. I wish the situtation were like this in all situations jon. The truth is it isn't. :( It is somewhere in between. This is why I think that when you go to license a software project you need to approach the issue on a per-project basis. You can't really (accurately) make a blanket statement like "BSD for everything" or "GPL for everything". GPL really does solve a lot of problems. BSD solves a lot of problems. I am not trying to come up with any resolution to either of these issues, I just want to resolve the conflicts with both camps by letting each roam free and do what they want. - -- Kevin A. Burton ( [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) Cell: 408-910-6145 URL: http://relativity.yi.org ICQ: 73488596 proprietary == evil -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Get my public key at: http://relativity.yi.org/pgpkey.txt iD8DBQE6lhinAwM6xb2dfE0RAhC7AJ473BZrs8vxeOSGt+Ftg82eKieAhACgsTBM jm8f6W+HT/xHarZn0qZzzM8= =sciX -END PGP SIGNATURE- Waco, Texas Khaddafi munitions Albanian DES Mossad North Korea NSA KGB smuggle South Africa Peking class struggle Nazi Treasury - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
At 09:54 23/2/01 +0100, Ceki Glc wrote: Sure. A license to be worth the electrons it's written on must be enforceable. Who is going to do the enforcing? In the GPL/APL case there are two bodies involved, the FSF and the ASF. Say product X is dual GPL/APLed but it breaches both the GPL terms and the APL terms. The FSF folks will look at X and say, yes it breaches the GPL but it's OK since the user is probably using the APL terms. The ASF people will look at X and say, oh, it's breaching the APL but the user probably intends to use the GPL. No - the enforcement of licenses (at least in free software world) is always delegated to the body that owns the copyright. Even if the ASF released something under the GPL the FSF would have nothing to do with it - it would still be the ASF who must uphold it. The ASF would be responsible for identifying and pursuing breaches of either license ;) Cheers, Pete *-* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
Hi folks. "Kevin A. Burton" wrote: ... the truth is somewhere in between. I think Dual Licensing solves the issue. You get your BSD and I get my GPL :) :) :) It's rather a lose-lose situation. You lose control over the derivatives if I want, and/or you lose credit if I choose. Alex. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
At 20:07 23.02.2001 +1100, Peter Donald wrote: At 09:54 23/2/01 +0100, Ceki Glc wrote: Sure. A license to be worth the electrons it's written on must be enforceable. Who is going to do the enforcing? In the GPL/APL case there are two bodies involved, the FSF and the ASF. Say product X is dual GPL/APLed but it breaches both the GPL terms and the APL terms. The FSF folks will look at X and say, yes it breaches the GPL but it's OK since the user is probably using the APL terms. The ASF people will look at X and say, oh, it's breaching the APL but the user probably intends to use the GPL. No - the enforcement of licenses (at least in free software world) is always delegated to the body that owns the copyright. Even if the ASF released something under the GPL the FSF would have nothing to do with it - it would still be the ASF who must uphold it. The ASF would be responsible for identifying and pursuing breaches of either license ;) Cheers, Good point. That kills the enforcement argument. :-) Ceki Ceki Glc Web: http://qos.ch av. de Rumine 5 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) CH-1005 Lausanne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Switzerland Tel: ++41 21 351 23 15 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: 3.2.2?
It can be built from the CVS sources, but it has not yet been made into a release as far as i know. Randy -Original Message- From: David M. Rosner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 3:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3.2.2? Hi All, I'm running jakarta 3.2 and have run into a problem where certain browsers get the text of the jsp code instead of the correct results of the jsp execution. I found 2 bugs in the bug database that appear to be the same problem. The resolution states that this problem has been fixed in versions 3.2.2 and 3.3. I see that 3.3 is not a release version so i don't want to touch that just yet. But I can't find 3.2.2 anywhere. Does anyone know where 3.2.2 can be found and if so if it is a stable release? Thanks, -dave - David M. Rosner - 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]
RE: 3.2.2?
The first (and hopefully only) beta release of Tomcat 3.2.2 should happen early next week. If all goes well the final release will happen in mid-March. -Original Message- From: Randy Layman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: 3.2.2? It can be built from the CVS sources, but it has not yet been made into a release as far as i know. Randy -Original Message- From: David M. Rosner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 3:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 3.2.2? Hi All, I'm running jakarta 3.2 and have run into a problem where certain browsers get the text of the jsp code instead of the correct results of the jsp execution. I found 2 bugs in the bug database that appear to be the same problem. The resolution states that this problem has been fixed in versions 3.2.2 and 3.3. I see that 3.3 is not a release version so i don't want to touch that just yet. But I can't find 3.2.2 anywhere. Does anyone know where 3.2.2 can be found and if so if it is a stable release? Thanks, -dave - David M. Rosner - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
