On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:21:57AM -0500, Justin Wells wrote:
> Yes. Like the MPL, which you have accepted as being compatible
> with the Apache worldview. Why did that elicit such a hostile
> response? The FSF found many things objectionable in the first
> drafts of the SPL which I sent them, but instead of going
> ballistic and writing nasty messages to me they instead wrote
> back clear and well thought out explanations of what was wrong,
> in their view. I changed things, sent it back, and after about
> three such iterations they declared that my license was now a
> free software license.
I'm glad it's been blessed now. ;-)
> Every single draft I ever submitted to you came with a request
> that you tell me in what ways it needed to be modified to be
> compatible with an Apache project. Note that I was *not* trying
> to draft an Apache license. I was trying to draft a license
> that you could work with.
>
> I suggest you compare the failed way the ASF dealt with those
> requests to the successful way the FSF dealt with it.
I'd really prefer if you didn't blame us for the fact that your own
beliefs are much closer to the GPL than the ASL. You're welcome to your
beliefs, but please don't try to force your beliefs on us or blame us
for the fact that you didn't want to use an ASL-compatible license.
> Here's a challenge: Can you find *anything* in the last draft
> of the SPL that would have prevented you from working with it?
>
> http://shimari.com/SPL/SPL.html
This license does not clearly identify the line where modifications to
WM end and additional software packages begin. It is clear if WM is
used without modifications; however, if modifications are done, it seems
unclear to me. The definition of 'modifications' includes:
"...including without limitation alterations performed by patching,
deleting, adding to, or replacing parts of the the software..." What
kinds of additions are covered? Does it have to be in org.webmacro.*?
What if it's a class which extends WMServlet, causing it to behave
differently at runtime? Where does it end?
If we can't modify the software, then we can't maintain it and we won't
use it; OTOH if modifications to the software might cause the licensing
to become sticky, then the would invalidate the ASL. So far as I can
see, the second issue is still quite relevant, once we assume that we
may need to modify the software at some point.
The MPL 1.1, while similar, is much more careful to delinate this in
precise language.
This is one of the issues which Roy explained. It remains an issue, so
far as I can tell.
> At this point I'm simply hoping to reform the ASF so that it
> becomes a functioning software foundation capable of dealing
> with the world. At this point it's not. It's just a code
> hosting facility, a fanatical religion and a few badly
> written policy documents.
>
> Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Indeed.
Well, FWIW -- I'm quite dubious that further discussion will influence
any ASF members, since you've shown very little respect for us in the
matter. If that really is your intent, your time would be better spent
in other ways -- making sure WM kicks Velocity's ass, for example. ;-)
cheers --
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
