On Thursday, September 6, 2007, 6:18:42 PM, Janne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2007, at 17:20, Gwyn Evans 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... > That is exactly where the "category B" is coming from. Do we need to > wait until ASF gets the 3rd party license policy completed? I'd expect not, if for no other reason than we (Wicket) recently came out of incubation under that sort of policy, including using some libraries licensed under MIT, BSD and CDDL! > Please note that it would be *impossible* for us to work without some > of the category B libraries, such as the JUnit testing library. Well, IANAL, but it seems to me that JUnit specifically's not going to be a problem, as the focus is on things you deliver, as opposed to something that you just use during the build. > Also, things like JavaMail libraries are highly useful for our user > experience (e.g. sending email in case the user forgets his > password). If there is an Apache-compatible implementation > available, then fine. That's in the deliverables, but as long as you follow the draft, e.g. getting the NOTICE file correct, I can't see a problem. > There are some custom licenses out there where we would need help > from ASF's lawyers to check whether the licenses are really ok. > Having to reimplement e.g. a permissive HTML-parser or a caching > library would be a real PITA. Indeed. /Gwyn --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
