On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:07:15PM -0500, Justin Wells wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 12:00:22AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> I'd really prefer it if people from the ASF stopped coming back
> at me with these ridiculous, stupid, pointless, and frustrating
> "you don't get it" comments.
>
> My beliefs aren't relevant here since I've expressed a desire,
> repeatedly, and for months now, to make whatever changes are
> necessary to make the license compatible with your license.
I didn't say "you don't get it." I was simply saying that because your
beliefs are much closer to those of the FSF, it is no surprise that you
had a better experience dealing with them. And because your goal is to
use a license to encourage contribution to open source projects --
something the FSF is based on and the ASF opposes -- it is also little
surprise that they were able to help you and happy about accepting a
modified version of your license.
We don't like complex licenses, and we don't like licenses which attempt
to legally require contributions of source code. We don't support the
MPL 1.1 -- we're just willing to tolerate it (with some distaste)
because it has language which is sufficiently precise that our lawyers
feel comfortable with us using it.
There's nothing wrong with disliking this kind of license -- and there's
nothing wrong with choosing not to spend our time helping you tune a
license based on ideals with which we fundamentally disagree. Roy did
in fact spend a signifcant amount of time discussing this with you and
lawyers -- after enough iterations, he decided he didn't want to spend
any more time on it.
> > > Here's a challenge: Can you find *anything* in the last draft
> > > of the SPL that would have prevented you from working with it?
[snip]
> > What if it's a class which extends WMServlet, causing it to behave
> > differently at runtime? Where does it end?
>
> It ends at the point where your modification has no impact on
> the structure, sequence, or organization of WebMacro.
>
> I could clarify that term. It has a specific meaning here in
> Canada, but it probably doesn't elsewhere, and I could replace
> it with something that was spelled out in the license.
Look -- we're not just in Canada, we would concievably have to deal with
legal systems throughout the world. And the issue with the lack of
precision is one which has been brought up repeatedly; could you please
stop saying that we haven't explained the problems in this license?
If you've wanted to resolve this for months, why is that license still
vague? It's not vague in the sense of "I don't think I understand what
it means" -- it's vague in a legal sense, and that's the problem.
Legally precise language is a *pain*...we're not going to do it for you.
You can tell me we're wrong, and that the 0.29 license isn't dangerous
to us. I won't argue with you -- but you're *not* going to convince me.
And you're not going to convince others in the ASF. No one has said
that you shouldn't use the license -- but that doesn't mean we should.
> > 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.
>
> I used to have respect for the ASF, based on the ASF having
> created the Apache webserver (or more accurately, having taken
> over that project), etc., but now I've had to deal with the ASF
> and you're right--I've lost respect for it.
If you hang around the ASF projects insulting us & our practices, it
reflects on you at least as much as on us. If you think your community
building practices are better -- go out and build software which is
better than ours.
This is my last response.
cheers --
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
