Steve, take me easy, but I think I can agree with all you wrote, but
this is totally off topic.
Please, EVERYONE, download the attachment contributed and tell me where
the GPL thing is.
There is not such dependency on GPL, noone here want to include a GPL
project in James, noone ever said that. There is NO ARTIFACT, there is
no SMELL.
And you probably misunderstood my "Not all apache software users use it
due to the ASL licensing".
When you add JDBC support to an application you add support for an API
that is under a License accepted by the ASF.
There are plenty of JDBC implementations with the most different
licensing, even GPL, but it is with no doubt an interest to every user
that you support the JDBC API: everyone will take his advantages,
someone will use GPL implementations, others will write their own
implementations, it simply DOES NOT MATTER.
Please, again and for the last time, this thread is named "JAMES-461"
and the issue as an attachment: we are talking of this issue, not of
anything else, not of GPL, and not even of MailDir as nothing in that
patch is "maildir specific".
I think we're all loosing time with this discussion because people do
not understand the subject of the thread (JAMES-461, a patch, a
contribution).
Don't be so "easy" to simply read the subject of the Issue and start
throwing fuel on the fire. I just renamed the issue to "Javamail Store
based MailRepository support (was: Maildir support)" so I guess we can
start talking of concrete things and features for james and stop talking
of unrelated topics.
Stefano
PS: that said, I think I am the only one that reviewed the zip file, btw
I may have missed something and I would be REALLY happy if, instead of
all this messages anyone could help reviewing the code and opening
concrete issues. I feel dumb when I keep trying to explain something and
people continue on the wrong path (I hope in the last year I proved I
deserve at least a little trust, but maybe not).
Steve Brewin wrote:
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
