Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Folks,
Could you toss the board a bone here - i.e. reach consensus what *we* as
developers (all of us :-) feel are acceptable boundaries for working on
that code.
Yes.
Then the board will help define what the ASF deems acceptable, and work
with you to convey this
Dirk,
The WS-PMC wants to build new Apache WS projects on SAMLHere's the VOTE RESULTS
that i sent to
this mailing list.
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=104549544123838&w=2)
Thanks,
dims
--- Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, S
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Scott Cantor wrote:
> In any case, my thoughts notwithstanding, it's obviously something that
> the people interested in building new Apache WS projects on SAML should
> decide.
Aye - and the board@ is unlikely to do anything significant until at least
that group has reache
> Some thoughts:
>
> - Zero Royalty versus (perpetual) Royalty Free ? Or a perpatual
> license with Zero Royalty today.
I think a perpetual license is a big issue, because otherwise people have to assume
the rug could be yanked from under them. I know
that's my biggest concern, persona
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I object to this. And it did not say WILL be royalty-free it said
..
> I object to that as well.
..
> I would like to petition the board for such a statement.
Folks,
Could you toss the board a bone here - i.e. reach consensus what *we* as
develop
Scott Cantor wrote:
There is the one I don't believe. By their statement it did not say
that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate
license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of
contradicted that. IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening th
Anybody downloading the code will have to obtain a royalty-free
license from RSA to use it, separate from whatever other license
applies (i.e. the ASL). Period. Unless the ASF talks them into
changing their mind, that's the story. No ambiguity intended.
Will it be royalty-free forever and ever?
> There is the one I don't believe. By their statement it did not say
> that developers using the software would have to obtain a seperate
> license that they "INTEND" to be free, then on the next line it kind of
> contradicted that. IANAL but I see this as WAY more threatening than
> LGPL se
Awesome! Glad to know it.
Update to my comment:
The OpenSAML proponents took the comments received here and formed the
constructive action of emailing RSA about
addressing our concerns and are waiting for a reply ;-). It appears
like they're keeping their eye on the ball.
Better?
-Andy
Dav
I certainly disagree that I didn't address the issue. Your issue was that you didn't believe the RSA license (that may never get
released, the way things are going ;-) would be royalty-free, which simply disregards the history of the discussion with RSA that
you weren't part of. It will be, wheth
FYI, Here's the message that i sent to Rob @ RSA on Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:38:57 -0800
(PST). No
reply from him yet. I HAVE NOT DROPPED IT YET...
--- Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 07:38:57 -0800 (PST)
> From: Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: I
> It seemed to me that OpenSAML had issues best addressed by the board
> with some advice and consent by the members. The division of
> responsibility should be clarified here. One board member did respond.
> The proponent seemed to argue the point without addressing the issue, and
> I think it
12 matches
Mail list logo
