At 12:10 28/2/01 +1100, Peter Donald wrote:
At 07:50 27/2/01 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
GNUs stance is never to compromise which means that the only way
for APL to fit in is to remove advertising/name clauses which
is unfortunately where one of Apaches strengths are
I suspect that that clause
At 09:26 27/2/01 -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
I suspect that that clause is not the core issue.
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2000-August/msg00207.html
I suspect intention and reality are different.
You need to read Brian's words carefully. There is an asymmetry here which
may not
on 2/27/01 4:09 PM, "Peter Donald" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It ain't matter what the ASF permits as the GPL does not permit it ;)
Then don't use the GPL.
(round and round and round and round)
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP background, JSP is a way to take
your pain to new levels.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 11:15 27/2/01 +0100, Alex Fernndez wrote:
Probably you have a stronger case here, but I'd like to know the opinion
of the PMC on the
subject, if they think it's worthwhile. Would you accept dual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Sam Ruby" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
IANAL, nor do I play one on TV. But I have seen quite a few good people
try to resolve what appears on the surface to be a deceptively simply
issue, and fail. Significant attempts have been made, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Sam Ruby" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
snip
GNUs stance is never to compromise which means that the only way
for APL to fit in is to remove advertising/name clauses which
is unfortunately where one of Apaches strengths are
I suspect that that
-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
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
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.
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
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
At 05:14 22/2/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
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.
Nope they can't ;) APL is not BSDL and in fact GNU
At 17:14 22.02.2001 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
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
At 02:32 23/2/01 +0100, Ceki Glc wrote:
Absolutely agree. However, a good portion of the world does not. We should
strive to accommodate both camps. Could anyone explain what dual GPL/APL
licensing really means? Thanks in advance, Ceki
In terms of Apache it means the value of the Apache name is
Peter,
Thanks for your reply. My question was really about the logical meaning of dual
licensing. For example, assume that the GPL has requirements G1, G2, Gn and the APL
has requirements A1, A2, ..., Am, does dual licensing mean:
1) All of G1, G2, .., Gn, A1, A2, ..., Am must be satisfied.
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
Peter,
Thanks for your reply. My question was really about the logical meaning of
dual licensing. For example, assume that the GPL has requirements G1, G2, Gn
and the APL has requirements A1, A2, ..., Am, does dual
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
on 2/11/01 1:15 PM, "Doug Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
The point being that:
It doesn't matter that JUnit doesn't do what you want. The fact of the
matter is that instead of creating yet another
on 2/21/01 10:05 PM, "Kevin A. Burton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The goals are to move it back
under Apache as long as we can keep the dual LGPL/APL License.
Kevin
Sorry. That won't happen (as far as I know). The ASF board would never go
for it.
-jon
--
If you come from a Perl or PHP
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
on 2/12/01 12:38 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Why didn't I start working wit
on 2/19/01 7:45 AM, "Ted Husted" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what he would like to see is a message that starts with
"I proposed these changes to the JUnit group, but they weren't
interested. Is this something we could do instead?"
-Ted.
Yea, at least someone hears me correctly.
-jon
At 04:06 10/2/01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I propose a project for testing infrastructure, that covers the needs of
unit testing, stress testing, performance testing, negative testing (i.e.
testing of error conditions), integration testing, and error logging and
reporting.
Stress and
At 11:52 11/2/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
So, your opinion on JUnit is based on a quote on their website and a quick
glance at it? Give me a break dude.
This is exactly the type of mindset that I despise.
People need to start to learn to work together instead of constantly
re-inventing each
Why not use J2EEUnit for serverside testing ?
It is built on top of JUnit.
It also is hosted SourceForge.
HttpUnit is only appropiate for client side testing.
The frameworks are geared for different audiences.
In this case J2EE would probably be more appropiate.
-Rob
on 2/12/01 12:38 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Why didn't I start working with JUnit instead of creating our own testing
environment?"
No. My statement really is:
Why don't you look to see if you can work with the JUnit community to extend
JUnit to do
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:42:38 -0800, Jon Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on 2/12/01 12:38 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
"Why didn't I start working with JUnit instead of creating our own testing
environment?"
No. My statement really is:
Why
* Ovidiu Predescu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote :
I believe we should look at the merits of his framework before
discussing how or whether it can or should be integrated with JUnit.
Your approach of one size fits all doesn't always work.
I totally agree, and as the original 'cause' of this
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED], "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
on 2/10/01 1:06 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have analyzed JUnit an
Doug Davis typed the following on 06:56 AM 2/11/2001 -0500
From the junit.org website:
JUnit is a regression testing framework written by Erich
Gamma and Kent Beck. It is used by the developer who
implements unit tests in Java.
But from by quick glances at JUnit what struck me was that
it
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
on 2/11/01 9:10 AM, "Doug Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kief wrote:
Maybe you could write a non-programming abstraction layer
for JUnit: something which takes XML input (which can be
generated by a GUI i
ED]
cc:
Subject: Re: Test Infrastructure Project Proposal
on 2/11/01 1:15 PM, "Doug Davis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(John, combined response to your two notes):
JON. Please spell my name correctly. :-)
I didn't just read that one line on the Web Site - but I was using
it as an examp
Jon Stevens wrote:
I will try one more time before I ask Sam to go
down to your office an explain it to you.
I've been to his office. Suffice it to say that he has about as thick of a
head as, well, some of the people around here. ;-)
Lets use Sam as an example here:
[snip]
Good example,
31 matches
Mail list logo
