LOL!
http://www.internalmemos.com/memos/memodetails.php?memo_id=1321
-jon
--
StudioZ.tv /\ Bar/Nightclub/Entertainment
314 11th Street @ Folsom /\ San Francisco
http://studioz.tv/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
Sam, Noel, everyone..
With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that
we had indeed
received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs to be
made more clear
somewhere.
If they issued a separate license for everyone to use, then I see no
record of this on
Danny Angus wrote:
With respect to dnsjava and mm.mysql, my understanding is that we
had indeed received such alternate licensing. Perhaps this needs
to be made more clear somewhere.
If they issued a separate license for everyone to use, then I see
no record of this on their website. If
It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members
are the legal
*owners* of the software that is available under the Apache
Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to
becoming an ASF member, as opposed to just a committer on one
or more projects. It seems
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 13:46, Sam Ruby wrote:
MySQL have indicated to me that they do intend to provide (or
consider providing) specific less restrictive licences to certain
groups, and that jakarta would likely be one, but I haven't heard any
more, and until then the last release of
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I've never heard this other interperatation outside of the ASF. I'll
put more research into the issue and get back to you.
I know that all of the developers that use LGPL that I know of think
that the jar binaries can be used with no problem at all in any type
of
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
Define link.
If you were subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would have already
seen the following:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641442
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL
Still there..
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 08:52:34AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Has it been taken offline? I was looking at it earlier, and can't now.
Anyone have a copy? I'd like to keep one.
geir
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 03:00 AM, Jon Scott Stevens wrote:
LOL!
On 10/2/03 4:05 Lawrence E. Rosen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It should be noted that Apache Software Foundation members
are the legal
*owners* of the software that is available under the Apache
Software License. Indeed, that is one of the key benefits to
becoming an ASF member, as opposed to
Does this mean the ASF has taken away the ability for others to do
derived works (including derived works that make the code commercial or
GPL -- with a simple name change)? That would mean the license is no
longer open source (by OSD anyway)?
This is a strange discussion thread.
On Mon,
I would, of course, pass this on as even a specific
licence for Apache may not accord with either the ASFL or
distribution of the driver by our mirrors. FWIW I believe that I
summarised this on general@jakarta at the time, but perhaps not.
The net affect of such a license
No there are plenty of works derived from Apache
projects. Apache code may be freely modified or
redistributed, but as per the Apache license:
The end-user documentation included with
[redistributions of Apache code], if any,
must include the following acknowlegement:
This product
On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Timothy Halloran wrote:
Date: 10 Feb 2003 13:43:24 -0500
From: Timothy Halloran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Licensing again.
Does this mean the ASF has taken away the
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 16:19, Sam Ruby wrote:
Define link.
If you were subscribed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would have already
seen the following:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgId=641442
14 matches
Mail list logo
