On 9/6/07, Garrett Rooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/6/07, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/6/07, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > While agreeing that it's something that needs looking at closely, I'm > > > not I'm not sure it's downbeat as I think you're suggesting. The > > > 3rd-party licencing policy at http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html > > > redirects to the draft at http://people.apache.org/~rubys/3party.html, > > > but that suggests that, especially for use in binary form, licences > > > such as CDDL or CPL aren't necessarily incompatible... > > > > > > Right. However, as you noted, that's a draft, so it may change. I hope > it > > does. > > So you're expecting JSPWIki to be held to a standard that doesn't > exist even in the draft documentation that we have for such things?
Expecting? No. Hoping for? Yes. That seems rather extreme. I'd suggest that such discussion belongs > on the legal discuss mailing list, as opposed to on the incubator > list. It does. However, I brought it up here because I see a long list of non-AL dependencies for JSPWiki and that concerns me. I think it's fair enough to express those concerns here, no? The fact that it's part of a greater concern that I have for the integrity of the ASF seemed relevant to me, even if detailed discussion of that belongs elsewhere. -- Martin Cooper -garrett > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
