on 10/28/2000 5:41 PM, "Aaron Mulder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Overall, the most unfortunate thing here is that I don't believe
> either party is trying to lock out code from the other. But the fact that
> the licenses are not compatible means that one group or the other has to
> change licenses in order to enable true sharing of code, which is one of
> the greatest promises of open source. And it doesn't sound like either
> party is willing.
>
> Aaron
The amazing thing here is that the APL 1.1 license is one of the least
restrictive licenses out there and definitely much less restrictive than the
GPL. So, we are asking to not go to a MORE restrictive license, but to a
LESS restrictive license. How can that be a bad thing?
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
