For what it's worth when I was writing the original SPL I got an
emailed opinion from Richard Stallman that it was compatible with
the GNU GPL because it said that you could use the GNU GPL
instead of the SPL. He actually reviewed several drafts of the SPL,
and it changed several times to bring it into line with the
principles of the FSF in other respects as well, just as I had
changed it to bring it into line with the views of the ASF. We
would have had a single license that worked for both communities
had the ASF not been so belligerent.
The FSF was much easier to deal with than the religious nutcases
at the ASF. The FSF has consistent and well stated principles that
they adhere to, and if you adhere to those principles as well then
they accept your license.
The only consistent principle ever followed by the ASF was
effectively "not invented here".
Anyway, I can produce those emails from Stallman if you wish to see
his opinion on the matter of dual licensing. In that case the
dual licensing was written right into the SPL, whereas now the
GPL alternative is "non-sticky" since it has to be external
to the Apache style license.
Ugh, what a disaster you people created with your frankenstein
non-free-software ASF license.
Justin
On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Justin Wells wrote:
> Well you'll hear exactly the same from whoever else, it's a pretty
> simple concept. The exact same principle is in effect when a software
> company sells you a commercial license for a product that also has
> some kind of evaluation license. It's their property, they can license
> it under as many licenses as they like.
>
> You seem to think there is something magic about opensource licenses
> that make them different, but there isn't. They're legally the same
> as any other kind of license--there are no special laws just for
> opensource software (which is actually a problem, since it's hard
> to do exactly what we might want to do with the existing laws.)
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:37:32AM -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
> > on 10/31/2000 10:10 PM, "Justin Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Jon, hasn't this already been explained to you many times by now?
> >
> > Justin, I wasn't asking you for your opinion, I was asking GNU.org for their
> > third party opinion and only CC'd the mailing lists to let them know what is
> > up. I'm not sure how that was not clear to you given that I CC'd the mailing
> > lists and sent the message TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > -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 subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> > Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
