Ian Lynch wrote:
> It's no good saying "if this or if that" because we are
> where we are. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle :-).
Exactly.
> This is really the crux of all the discussions. Is it better to maximise
the
> development resource through cooperation or is it better to have two
> separate developments that end up incompatible with one another as far as
> code sharing is concerned?
> So in the end it is really quite a simple choice, cooperation or
separation.
> If it is cooperation and the licenses stay the same then to maximise
> resources, Noel's position is logical if not easy emotionally or
> philosophically for some.
Not mine. Perhaps stated more clearly and plainly, but others said the same
before me.
The issue is that there are players, IBM not being the only one, who require
a permissive license. TDF's licensing does not satisfy that requirement.
TDF could change, but I haven't seen any positive indication that it would.
So we are where we are:
- There is a codebase under a permissive license.
- There are players -- large and small -- who want/need to work on it.
- There is a large community actively engaged in working on the code
under a non-permissive license.
- Code can only flow from permissive to non-permissive.
Alternative suggestions as to HOW to collaborate are welcomed.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
