> No it says that your enduser of the Apache SAML library may
> have to pay RSA for a license (or rather it doesn't say that they won't).
Uh, no it doesn't. It says quite explicitly (in the loose language of intent) that
they do *not* plan to charge. Or if that's not
clear, please at least take
Paul Hammant wrote, On 21/02/2003 8.16:
Michael, Folks,
Dear Incubator List [...]
My take (not being on the incubator PMC) is that I'd like to see the
code. I want to see how componentized it is - I might like to use some
of the comps outside of Lenya or outside of Cocoon itself - I'm always
Scott Cantor wrote:
On my part this is -1 on these types of terms in general.
These terms basically make Apache a free development
subsidiary of RSA which is just not good.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. The license language that they are supposedly writing does not connote a
> On my part this is -1 on these types of terms in general.
> These terms basically make Apache a free development
> subsidiary of RSA which is just not good.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. The license language that they are
supposedly writing does not connote any such thing.
It
Steven Noels wrote:
My main concern is the fact that Lenya does not come only with a
community, but also with a code base. That code base is in use already
at a selected number of commercial installations (which is good, of
course). I hope to be proven wrong, yet I fear the existing codebase is
Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
You seem to be concerned that the software is *used* in productive
environments.
Do software developers who want to change the code have to take that into
account? Yes, certainly they should do that.
Is that an argument against the adoption of the software? No, quite the
op
