Stefano Bagnara wrote: <snipped> > > > And this is not in the interest of people using Apache software. > > I don't agree: Not all apache software users use it due to the ASL > licensing.
While not wishing to throw more fuel on the fire, tainting an Apache project with a dependency on any artifacts that incorporate or even smell of GPL style restrictions is definitely not in the interest of people using Apache software. Moreover, the ASF will be the worse for this if it occurs. Perhaps one of the better contributions I have made to Apache is to help turn around the attitudes of a number of major software vendors and corporates with whom I've worked. They have moved from forbidding the inclusion of open software in a product or application to it being permissible to include software with ASL style licenses. Though in truth, most interpret this as Apache software. Their legal eagles see Apache software and pass it as cool. Apache is seen as a brand. Its been a hard fought battle to build this level of trust in the brand. We have moved from an automatic no to an automatic yes. When we have a borderline case my view is that we shouldn't go there. The risk of breaking the trust people have in us far outweighs any pragmatic benefits a particular feature in a particular project might gain. > I believe that most James users would use it even > if it were GPL. > So I think that *adding a new feature* is not against "the > interest of > people using Apache software" Its true that some people are happy with most any license agreement. Some people are not all people. We have to maintain the trust of all people. Cheers -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
