On Jan 2, 2004, at 2:10 PM, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
You still need mechanisms to allow the developer to override the
default
decisions checked in to the build scripts. For nearly all of the
"I've checked
in jars for the convenience of developers" packages I've evaluated for
use fail
to allow
Quoting Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
>
> > I see what you are saying, but why is this an issue only with OGNL? Is it
> because of license
> > incompatibilities? 'Cause there are other jars in CVS both Apache and
> non-Apache.
> Harish,
>
> It isn't only an issue with OGNL, it is a g
> I see what you are saying, but why is this an issue only with OGNL? Is it
because of license
> incompatibilities? 'Cause there are other jars in CVS both Apache and
non-Apache.
Harish,
It isn't only an issue with OGNL, it is a general issue which has been
bubbling away for months.
In princip
Harish Krishnaswamy wrote:
I am with Erik on "no JARs in CVS". Unless it is a legal issue, I would
certainly like to distribute all JARs with the distribution. It saves a
lot of hassle and keeps uncessary traffic out of the user-list.
At the expense of lots of wasted bandwidth and disk space. I
On Dec 24, 2003, at 5:47 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
In the case of most of the licences we'd be likely to consider in this
context it is usually perfectly OK to distribute Jars in a
distribution because that gives you the opportunity to comply with
licence conditions regarding distribution of their
I see what you are saying, but why is this an issue only with OGNL? Is it because of license
incompatibilities? 'Cause there are other jars in CVS both Apache and non-Apache.
-Harish
Danny Angus wrote:
I am with Erik on "no JARs in CVS". Unless it is a legal issue, I
would certainly like to dis
> I am with Erik on "no JARs in CVS". Unless it is a legal issue, I
> would certainly like to distribute
> all JARs with the distribution.
In the case of most of the licences we'd be likely to consider in this context it is
usually perfectly OK to distribute Jars in a distribution because tha
Erik
> As for the larger issue of "no JARs in CVS" - I disagree.
I don't believe that there is room for opinion on this, the fact is it is possible for
people to download jars using viewcvs without having read the licence therefore it is
not acceptable.
UNLESS you have *specific* dispensation f
I am with Erik on "no JARs in CVS". Unless it is a legal issue, I would certainly like to distribute
all JARs with the distribution. It saves a lot of hassle and keeps uncessary traffic out of the
user-list.
-Harish
Erik Hatcher wrote:
In jakarta-tapestry/lib/ext lives all of the licenses of t
In jakarta-tapestry/lib/ext lives all of the licenses of the embedded
3rd party libraries. In that directory is a LICENSE.ognl.txt which
contains the full license. I believe this is all that is needed to
satisfy the license to redistribute the binary version. I can assure
that you we wil
As I just happened to notice this on Incubator [AltRMI in fact]:
"Is all source code distributed by the project covered by one or more of
the following approved licenses: Apache, BSD, Artistic, MIT/X, MIT/W3C,
MPL 1.1, or something with essentially the same terms?"
The below is, to my quick glan
11 matches
Mail list logo
