On Jan 23, 2008 11:26 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Niall Pemberton schrieb: > > On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Niall > >> > >> Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our > >> weight around. > >> > > > > Well you were talking about "need to change the package name" and > > "rigorous protection" rather than some kind of "hey we'd prefer > > it...". > > > > If people are so keen on *protecting* apache in this way then rather > > than starting with a failed incubator project, then how about this > > stuff: > > > > https://glassfish.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfish/appserv-webtier/src/java/org/apache/ > > > > Again, that is a bit different from the original TCIK issue. It > *appears* that here they are not doing this in order to *distribute* a > forked copy of tomcat, but instead to support tomcat as an alternative > internal servlet-engine implementation within their own j2ee server. In > other words, I would think that: > (a) you could not normally download this code except by downloading the > entire glassfish server, and > (b) they are not actively developing this code to add new features > (forking) but simply adding a few patches to make it integrate better > with Glassfish. > > The alternate implementations of commons-logging have also been > mentioned in this thread. This is not the same IMO. Commons-logging is > both an API and an implementation. People should be able to provide > alternate implementations of an API, and that is what slf4j are doing > for example; they are not providing a "patched" or "forked" > commons-logging, but instead a complete alternative implementation, and > are distributing just the minimum amount of code to provide the same api > to users. > > So: > * distributing a few classes in order to implement an apache API : ok > * distributing a copy of apache code for the convenience of users of a > larger package, perhaps with a few minor tweaks for better integration: ok > * publishing code to the world which bears no resemblance to code > approved by the ASF: not ok
My advice to anyone - read the license yourself, take advice if you feel you need it and ignore all the stuff being spouted here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution Niall > All this just just my opinion of course.. > > Regards, > Simon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
