On Jul 29, 2005, at 6:38 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Thanks for the fast reply, Roy. Could you elaborate a bit on what the
MIT
license specifically lacks to meet the terms?
The parts that aren't in the ASL2, particularly in regards to
retaining the NOTICE file's notices.
Yes, provided the lice
Roy T. Fielding gbiv.com> writes:
>
> On Jul 29, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> > Can I redistribute Apache Derby, unmodified, under the MIT
> > license?
>
> No, the MIT license is insufficient to meet the terms of the
> Apache license.
Thanks for the fast reply, Roy. Could you elabo
This was the report for log4net and log4php that was included in the Logging
Services board report in May. Their status has not changed significantly.
-Mark
---
log4net Report
--
* Log4net is currently incubating. The incubator approved the release
On Jul 29, 2005, at 3:33 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Can I redistribute Apache Derby, unmodified, under the MIT
license?
No, the MIT license is insufficient to meet the terms of the
Apache license.
Looking at the ASL2, it seems that I can chose
my terms for Derivative Works as a whole freely, as
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
I'm happy to take care of web site updates on Jeremy's list below.
Brian, can we move forward with graduation-related work, such as
requesting that infrastructure move derby's svn repo and committer
karmas from infras
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Jean T. Anderson wrote:
>> I'm happy to take care of web site updates on Jeremy's list below.
>>
>> Brian, can we move forward with graduation-related work, such as
>> requesting that infrastructure move derby's svn repo and committer
>> karmas from infrastructure to db? Or
Roy T. Fielding gbiv.com> writes:
>
> On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
>
Hi Roy,
thank you very much for your polite, fast and detailed reply.
Let's substitute the MIT license for the GPL/LGPL/whatever, since it is
less restrictive and considered to be acceptable for the ASF
Jean T. Anderson wrote:
Brian McCallister wrote:
On Jul 26, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
So what happens now? :-)
Logistical details that come to mind are:
* adding Derby committers to the DB PMC - I assume a vote on who to add
takes place on the DB PMC list, is this in proges
On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Geir,
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would
talk
out their differences about ASL and GPL in the
On Friday 29 July 2005 21:14, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Does adding a MIT licensed creative haiku on software licensing into each
> source file of an ASF work allow the NNUOFOTMITSL to redistribute the
> thereby created Derived Work (which includes ASFs code) as a whole under
> the MIT license, or und
On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:41 PM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
I'd like to sublicense all of ASF's ASL2 licensed Works in Source form
and
distribute those sublicensed Works to others under a GPL2/LGPL/ASL2
triple license (like Mozilla) on, say, cowgirls.kaffe.org.
Is that fine with the ASL2? My impression i
Brian McCallister wrote:
On Jul 26, 2005, at 11:21 AM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
So what happens now? :-)
Logistical details that come to mind are:
* adding Derby committers to the DB PMC - I assume a vote on who to add
takes place on the DB PMC list, is this in progess?
yes.
Cannot comment
Hi Geir,
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk
> > out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we
> > could and should just sta
Geir Magnusson Jr. apache.org> writes:
>
> Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding?
>
> The word is "sublicense", not "relicense"...
>
Aha! As Geir was polite to try to explain to me what makes sublicensing
different from relicensing, let me have another try, this time with an even
s
Is the problem you see due to a misunderstanding?
The word is "sublicense", not "relicense"...
On Jul 29, 2005, at 12:41 AM, Dalibor Topic wrote:
Roy T. Fielding gbiv.com> writes:
I have been helpful for the past ten years and have seen nothing
but intentional obstruction from the FSF. T
On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
When we started Harmony we all assumed that the FSF and ASF would talk
out their differences about ASL and GPL in the long run and that we
could and should just start cooperating on the technical level.
Yes, that is our intention still.
Why
On Jul 28, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:52 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
ASF mailing lists are protected to some degree by the community's
acceptance that the work done on those lists will be distributed
under the Apache license. We have a legal argu
Dear Roy,
Of course I have "used my own brain" to read the licenses, thought about
the incompatibilities and come to the conclusion that with a bit of good
will on all sides we could probably come up with some legal hacks to
circumvent the issues. And I am also surprized and frustrated that the
co
18 matches
Mail list logo
