| |||||||||||
Geronimo and JBossGeronimo and JBossPosted Jun 2, 2004 15:12 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487)In reply to: Geronimo and JBoss by pivot Parent article: Apache Software Foundation Announces Apache Geronimo as an Official Project
But you claim it is _only_ due to licensing issues? Please support that claim, not just that it is _also_ due to licensing issues. I do not "claim" it, I said that in my eyes ("I see that...") this appears to be the reason that is both sufficient and necessary (hence the reference to "iff") to justify the Geronimo project. I am still open to alternative explanations, but so far I see none. The apache foundation has a long history of using liberal licensing restriction (...) Same was true for the XFree86 project, and see where it went. It doesn't make any sense to debate ASL's GPL-incompatibility once again: 1) it has already been done before; 2) there are better forums for this topic; 3) this is a fact that can only be changed by ASF, not by some yet another flame. > Looks to me that Greg planned for GPL-incompatibility back then. No. That is a serious accusation, and at the absense of refutation, I am inclined to stand by it. Are you affiliated by JBoss in any way? No, I am not, and to my knowledge, the company I'm working for isn't affiliated with JBoss either. You can google for my nickname to see my affiliations if you need a proof. May I ask you the same, are you affiliated with ASF in any way? In this case, I am just an angry member of the community who is seriously pissed off by the growing amount of GPL-incompatible software.
(Log in to post comments)
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 16:09 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] IMHO the Apache Software Foundation tried hard to ensure that Apache License 2.0 was compatible with the GPL (version 2). The ASF worked on the new licence for several years, and anyone interested in it was welcome to comment on an appropriate mailing list. Eben Moglen commented on an early draft, stating:
The ASF basically believe the finalised 2.0 licence is GPL-compatible. It only became obvious that the FSF disagree when they updated their licence list. It's absolute rubbish to suggest Apache License 2.0 was designed to be incompatible with the GPL. Obviously the ASF cannot re-use LGPL'd code because the licence is too restrictive. Rest assured that the existence of Geronimo and Apache-licensed code will not make JBoss disappear.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 16:39 UTC (Wed) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] You can use ASF code in your GPL code. We, the ASF, aren't going to bother you about it. It's just the FSF who thinks they aren't compatible. We want to see our code used far and wide by all comers, be they individuals, companies, free software hackers or people building even proprietary products.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 20:05 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Are you ready to give a written statement on behalf of ASF to re-license ASF code under GPL or any other GPL-compatible license?
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 2, 2004 20:43 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link] The document Apache License v2.0 and GPL Compatibility on the Apache web site may shed some light.
Geronimo and JBoss Posted Jun 3, 2004 9:04 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Yes, I've seen that, but I've also seen this analysis, and I tend to agree with it. And debian-legal is as far from being blind FSF's supporters as it could be (see GFDL/DFSG conflict). As I've already said, this horse has been beaten to death already, no need to repeat it once again.
|
|||||||||||