Hi,
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 14:26 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 08:06 -0400, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> On Jul 29, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> >>> Why we
> >>&g
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
> >
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
Hi Roy,
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 13:52 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Note, however, that the people crying about the community terms
> are a bunch of idiots. They already require their contributors to
> assign copyright to the FSF. As such, the mailing list discussion
> is completely irrelevant t
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-07-16 at 11:45 -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > The license to review is the one in the specification documentation,
> > which in essence says nothing other than the fact that you are NOT
> > indemnified against IP claims, which is standard CYA by the OSGi
> > Alliance.
>
>
Hi,
On Sun, 2005-05-08 at 06:42 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> My point here is not that the above is wrong. My point is simply that
> these issues are hard.
>
> Nor do I mean to single out classpath. The ASF, for example, takes
> equal care in evaluating dependencies, ensuring that projects that m
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 14:38 -0500, Paul Hammant wrote:
> GPL code can can import BSD, MIT, X11, W3C (etc) code but cannot
> currently Apache licensed. That may well be worked out with an
> revision to the Apache Software License 2.0.
>
> BSD (etc) is not currently able to import GPL licens
Hi Doug,
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 12:00 -0400, Doug Lea wrote:
> I think the brilliance of Geir's move here is that all of
> FSF, Sun, IBM, BEA, etc now have equal motivation to change
> their licensing so that they can participate. I hope they all
> do.
If you reveal the secret plan, it isn't secre
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 00:26 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > But why bother to "work with others"? Why not just join the existing GNU
> > Classpath and Kaffe projects and work within them?
>
> > Geir indicated in a reply to my earlier posting that there were
> > no specific objections to the
Hi,
On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 00:20 -0400, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Mark Wielaard wrote:
>
> > I had hoped it would have more emphasized the fact that we would do
> > everything in our power to work out the philosophical, legal and
> > practical issues when reusing e
Hi,
On Fri, 2005-05-06 at 22:34 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> People working on Kaffe/Classpath are gonna advise us..see their names
> on the proposal :) We (Apache Gump team) has been working with them
> to make Kaffe/Classpath better for a while now
> (http://brutus.apache.org/gump/kaffe/bui
11 matches
Mail list logo
