Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Gluecode Contributes BPM Engine to Apache Software Foundation
Gluecode Software has
announced the contribution of Project Agila, the Apache Software
Foundation's first embeddable open source business process management (BPM)
engine. To ensure that it conforms to Apache Software Foundation's policies
for code contributions, Agila is proceeding through the foundation's
standard incubation stage. Once the incubation process is complete, Agila
will become part of the Apache Jakarta Project.
(Log in to post comments)
Gluecode Contributes BPM Engine to Apache Software Foundation Posted Oct 5, 2004 22:37 UTC (Tue) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] I've been looking at Java open source worflow implementations in the past days and here is the most interesting link I've found.http://www.manageability.org/blog/stuff/workflow_in_java/...
There was also a comparison matrix, but it wasn't complete.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 8:33 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Yet another semi-open-source piece of software that authors of GPLed code can make no use of. Sigh...
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 8:55 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] I think the ASF and FSF are both full of smart people, and will eventually resolve the GPL compatibility issues. Your flamebaiting, however, achieves nothing.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 9:16 UTC (Wed) by trawick (guest, #7304) [Link] Is it flamebaiting, or just a sigh? I'm sure he realizes that he chose to work in an environment with certain restrictions, and that it is unfortunate to him but inevitable that not everyone wishes to encumber their software with such restrictions.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 10:29 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] I take the phrase "yet another semi-open-source piece of software..." as an attempt at flamebaiting, yes. The licence is OSI certified, the FSF consider it a free software licence, and Debian appear to be happy with it from a DFSG point of view (they're actively debating the Apache License 2.0 patent termination clause at the moment). A vocal minority have made some nasty comments about the ASF, suggesting they deliberately engineered their new licence to be GPL incompatible, when in truth I believe ASF tried very hard to create a licence that met their own requirements as well as being compatible with version 2 of the GPL.
Apache License and Free But Shackled - The Java Trap Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:28 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link] The phrase "yet another semi-open-source piece of software..." was probably because often the Apache Group accepts "Open Source" which cannot be build or used with free tools. Since this is another project written in the java programming language there might be a chance that the source code hasn't even been tried to work with gcj or kaffe. It would be good if someone could try it out.I suggest reading "Free But Shackled - The Java Trap". That said, the fact that the Apache License 2.0 failed to be GPL compatible because of the extra restrictions that are not in the GPL is indeed a bit annoying at times. One of the stated goals of the new license was to be more compatible with other free software/open source licenses. Talks to make this finally happen with a Apache License 2.1 would be very welcome. And should be encouraged. Eben Moglen did try to help out with the Apache License 2.0 and made suggestions to fix the issue. So it probably is not a fatal design flaw and the licenses could be made compatible.
Apache License and Free But Shackled - The Java Trap Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:56 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] I accept your point about the use of Java in open source/free software, but the fact that the comment was entitled "Apache License" makes it very clear that it was not about the use of Java. The Apache License is certified open source, calling it "semi-open-source" is disingenuous.
Apache License and Free But Shackled - The Java Trap Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:58 UTC (Wed) by trawick (guest, #7304) [Link] >often the Apache Group accepts "Open Source" which cannot be build>or used with free tools
Whether or not that is true, such a situation is not a problem* IMHO, as the state of the code at any particular time is not so important for the long haul. The long term solution resides with the goal of the ASF to foster the type of development community which can accept good technical solutions for issues like that from people with the skills and the desire.
>the Apache License 2.0 failed to be GPL compatible because of the extra >restrictions that are not in the GPL is indeed a bit annoying at times
For these extra restrictions, folks should consider whether they think a restriction should be removed because the restriction is in and of itself harmful to users of the software, or it should be removed just because it is not compatible with current content of FSF licenses and you don't think FSF is willing to make an update to their license to account for it, or it should be removed because the the FSF takes an active dislike to the restriction and you don't think they can be convinced to change their mind, or it should be removed for some other reason.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 12:18 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] A vocal minority have made some nasty comments about the ASF, suggesting they deliberately engineered their new licence to be GPL incompatible After calling me a "vocal minority" and marking my opinion as "flaimbait" and "nasty comments", it would be fair to at least provide a link to the discussion of these "nasty comments" (Geronimo and JBoss), especially since you participated in it. Then the people who are interested in the subject could at least check how much of a flaimbait those comments were.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:49 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] I think the ASF and FSF are both full of smart people, and will eventually resolve the GPL compatibility issues. I never said they're not smart. I just tend to apply to ASF the Soviet proverb: a person can't be all three of smart, honest, and communist party member. I have no reason to believe that ASF is interested in resolving the GPL compatibility issue. Their last word on the matter was that ASL 2.0 is GPL-compatible as far as they're concerned, and it's not their problem if someone thinks otherwise. Unlike most other projects with their own licenses (e.g. Mozilla, Ruby, OpenOffice.org), ASF doesn't allow to dual-license under GPL. This shows that they are not interested in GPL, to say the least. Your flamebaiting, however, achieves nothing. Wrong. It raises awareness of this issue. And it isn't just a flamebait: it is an opinion ("semi-open-source" part) supported by a fact ("can make no use of" part). I used not to care too much about GPL-incompatible licenses, too, until I realized how big of a problem it poses in the long term, especially when consolidated by organizations such as ASF. And now it is a fact that I can't use SpamAssassin 3.0 in my GPLed open publishing engine, while it was possible with previous versions. I saw it coming, told about it, and now I got bitten by it. Why can't I complain about it?
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 13:06 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] Here is a suggestion which may be able to help you resolve the issue; you could release the next version of your open publishing engine under an Apache License 2.0/GPL dual-licence. All the best.
Dual license ASL/GPL Posted Oct 6, 2004 19:09 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] It is both impossible (if I use SpamAssassin3 in my program, I can't distribute it under GPL at all, so the only option I have is to license it under ASL or simple BSD), and defeats the purpose of distributing my program under GPL in the first place (ASL is not copyleft and would allow for my code to be used in proprietary software, which is not acceptable to me). Thanks, but no, thanks. I'd rather use SpamAssassin 2.64 or other spam filter with GPL-compatible license.
Dual license ASL/GPL Posted Oct 7, 2004 18:28 UTC (Thu) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] Another possibility would be to take the approach of MySQL AB. If you licence your work under the GPL with the FLOSS License Exception, you will be able to preserve the copyleft. Hope that's of some use.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 12:09 UTC (Wed) by andre (guest, #11559) [Link] funny. maybe i should start whinning about all that gpl software that can't be used by bsd-licensed software :\
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 12:34 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Not the same thing. BSD license, by design, allows to distribute the code under more restrictive terms. This ability is the main reason to use BSD license over GPL, so it's perfectly within both the terms and the intent of BSD license to distribute the combined work under more restrictive GPL.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 12:57 UTC (Wed) by andre (guest, #11559) [Link] i'm talking about the reverse situation. i can't use gpl'd software on bsd licensed software. so while the gpl does a good job in spreading gnu/freedom, it also does a good job in forcing developers who use other opensource licenses (which are arguably more free) to reinvent the wheel over and over again.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 15:44 UTC (Wed) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] You can USE GPL-licensed software with BSD licensed software in the same was as you can use GPL-ed code with proprietary code. What you can not do is to re-distribute GPL-ed code under BSD license. Due to the nature of GPL the combined work has to be redistributed under GPL but at least there is an option for redistribution.
The problem with Apache License 2.0 is that although in practice it is as unrestrictive as BSD license, there is no way to redistribute APL and GPL code together at all due to the patent clause.
Another problem is that the simple fact of using the APL software places an additional restriction on the user as he has to give up the right to initiate a patent litigation even for defense purposes to continue to use the software. Neither GPL nor BSD licenses place any restrictions on the software usage.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 15:54 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] If the other licenses really are "more free", why are developers then compelled to "reinvent the wheel over and over again"?One "more free" implementation ought to be enough, eh? Oh, unless somebody makes their helpful extensions proprietary, and then those have to be reinvented over again. I'm sorry, what was your point again? (Oh, and you can use GPL'd software on BSD licensed software -- it just means that the combined work must be distributed, if at all, under the GPL.)
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 17:58 UTC (Wed) by andre (guest, #11559) [Link] > One "more free" implementation ought to be enough, eh?> Oh, unless somebody makes their helpful extensions > proprietary, and then those have to be reinvented over again.
It's *their* extentions, which were written by *them*. It is thus *their* right to do whatever they want. Do you think it is right to impose a license on code you have not written?
> Oh, and you can use GPL'd software on BSD licensed software -- it
oh, thanks for informing. so "it just means that"? phew... so all i need to do now is change the license of *my* code because someone else wants to choose the license for me.
and i'm sure someone will say "well, don't use gpl'd software then". fine. but isn't that the same option i have when it comes to proprietary software, i.e., not using it?
or i can use the gpl code and not release it. wow, this is so useful.
Gluecode Contributes BPM Engine to Apache Software Foundation Posted Oct 7, 2004 9:32 UTC (Thu) by mtk77 (subscriber, #6040) [Link] Can anyone tell me what a "business process management engine" actually is?
It looks alarmingly like MS Project gone a bit mental.
|
|
||||||||||||