OK, and what way can LGPLv3 combine with ALv2? That its the license question about JBoss and MyFaces.
2007/6/11, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
here is my email to legal. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200706.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] The reply isn't archived yet, but will be in some minutes, from now. On 6/11/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > from the oreilly radar: > > <snip> > It will be possible to merge code under those licenses into GPL3 > covered software once the GPL version 3 is really out. > </snip> > > That reads like GPL3 code can contain Apache/Eclipse licensed code. > Not that Apache code can contain GPL3. > > Here is an interesting comment, by Larry Rosen: > http://www.rosenlaw.com/GPLv3-Comments.htm > > <snip> > Apache software can now be included in GPLv3 projects. > </snip> > > I am not a lawyer, so just a try to "read" those postings ;-) > > -M > > On 6/11/07, David Steinkopff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/GPL-likely-to-regain-Apache-compatibility/0,130061733,339276229,00.htm > > (english) > > http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/04/gplv3_apache_li.html > > (english) > > http://www.heise.de/open/news/meldung/90483 (german) > > > > for example > > > > regards > > David > > > > > > 2007/6/11, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > where did u read it ? > > > > > > On 6/11/07, David Steinkopff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I read LGPLv3/GPLv3 will be compatible with Apache License 2.0. Its in > > that > > > > case possible to include dependencies to LGPLv3 code? > > > > > > > > regards > > > > David > > > > > > > > 2007/6/10, Martin Marinschek < [EMAIL PROTECTED] >: > > > > > No, we cannot include source/binary-dependencies to LGPL code - sorry. > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > On 6/6/07, Cagatay Civici < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > To begin with jboss uses lgpl and that's not compatible with ASF > > > > license. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also frankly I do not want to mess with Jboss stuff cos MyFaces > > might > > > > face > > > > > > with their lawyers too as in Apache Geronimo case in 2004;) > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand facelets is always cool. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/6/07, Mike Kienenberger < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Don't know about Seam, RichFaces, or A4J, but I know that > > integrated > > > > > > > support for facelets is already part of Tobago and Trinidad, and > > is > > > > > > > planned for the next version of Tomahawk (for which I recently saw > > > > > > > someone create a new branch) by leveraging the infrastructure that > > > > > > > Trinidad provides. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/6/07, Andrew Robinson < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The more I use JSF, the more comfortable I get with some of the > > 3rd > > > > > > > > party open source libraries and the strengths and weaknesses of > > > > each. > > > > > > > > Until the JSF specification catches up with the common add-on > > > > > > > > technologies for JSF, the proverbial wheel is getting > > re-invented > > > > all > > > > > > > > the time (PPR, skinning, validation, JavaScript libraries, > > etc.). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find myself often using features from Facelets, MyFaces > > Tomahawk, > > > > > > > > MyFaces Sandbox, Seam framework and some of the components, A4J > > > > > > > > framework and components and a little of the RichFaces > > components > > > > > > > > (tree mainly) (and JDK 1.5 enhancements too). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When I think about contributing new components and framework > > code to > > > > > > > > the open source community, I want to leverage combinations of > > these > > > > > > > > frameworks, and not have to re-invent the wheel. I'm never sure > > > > where > > > > > > > > to put this code, and for those projects that I decided to > > forward > > > > > > > > with I have put them with jsf-comp on sourceforge, but I'd > > rather > > > > have > > > > > > > > them with a larger community for better support. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm wondering what the MyFaces and ASF teams would think about > > new > > > > > > > > projects under the MyFaces umbrella that leverage other > > libraries > > > > > > > > provided by JBoss. For example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - MyFaces+A4J > > > > > > > > - MyFaces+RichFaces > > > > > > > > - MyFaces+Seam > > > > > > > > - MyFaces+Facelets > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would give open source developers, that find ASF easier to > > work > > > > > > > > with as an open source foundation, an opportunity to provide new > > > > > > > > components that extend the JBoss libraries without having to > > > > > > > > contribute to JBoss, a commercially owned company. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What implications are there with this (Facelets vs. JBoss vs. > > apache > > > > > > > > licenses -- CDDL vs. LGPL vs. ApacheV2)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this something that MyFaces/ASF would be interested in, or is > > it > > > > > > > > recommended more that code that extends JBoss projects be part > > of > > > > the > > > > > > > > JBoss offerings? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > http://www.irian.at > > > > > > > > > > Your JSF powerhouse - > > > > > JSF Consulting, Development and > > > > > Courses in English and German > > > > > > > > > > Professional Support for Apache MyFaces > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > further stuff: > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > further stuff: > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > -- Matthias Wessendorf further stuff: blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
