On 6/5/2011 3:56 PM, Keith Curtis wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 10:47 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. > <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> others, "Free/Libre" software. Nobody is suggesting that any AL work >> is ever "Free/Libre". There is a multiplicity of Open Source thought, >> and we won't go into detail, others have done so better than the two >> of us can. > > The first step to abandoning the Apache license is for others to > recognize like you have that it is not a "free/libre" license. I don't > know why people bother to put the Apache text at the top of every > file, when someone else can just as quickly remove / relicense it. > Anyway, that is for another day other than the fact that I think IBM > should be endorsing the LGPL / GPL as their preferred license.
Correct, it is not a free/libre license, doesn't try to be, doesn't claim to be, you cannot strip the copyright without permission, you can only relicense under appropriate terms. What you believe IBM should do likely has no bearing on what IBM will choose to do. We are now >50 posts on this list into an individual who is not a contributor to TDF/LO, and is here seeking publicity for his writing. Let's remember please to not feed the trolls, and move on. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
