- Original Message -
From: "Mladen Turk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Tomcat Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 3:24 AM
Subject: RE: [5.0] Problems with the next release
>
>
> &
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Henri Gomez wrote:
Please subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and follow the thread about
'clarification'.
It seems there is a discussion on having non ASF binaries :
2) state that the ASF will allow the use of its infrastructure for
the distribution of binary objects th
Henri Gomez wrote:
Please subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and follow the thread about
'clarification'.
It seems there is a discussion on having non ASF binaries :
2) state that the ASF will allow the use of its infrastructure for the
distribution of binary objects that are legally distribut
Please subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and follow the thread about
'clarification'.
It seems there is a discussion on having non ASF binaries :
2) state that the ASF will allow the use of its infrastructure for the
distribution of binary objects that are legally distributable standalone
ev
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Gomez
> >> Henri, Remy and Costin proposed to move the binaries to
> sourceforge,
> >> until
> >> the things clears up.
> >> I'm in favor of that, and will support such a decision if voted.
>
> Well I didn't agreed on moving TC binaries to sf or othe
Henri Gomez wrote:
Well I didn't agreed on moving TC binaries to sf or others.
I mentioned that being also involved in projet like Jpackage, I know
that's producing ready to use packages is not so easy, expecially when
you have to explain to users that they have to get MANY external jars
from outs
jean-frederic clere wrote:
Mladen Turk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: jean-frederic clere
Mladen Turk wrote:
What about linking to static microsoft libraries?
That is probably not OK.
I know that, but I know too that the law doesn't have a term
_probably_ in
it's dictionary.
Mladen Turk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: jean-frederic clere
Mladen Turk wrote:
What about linking to static microsoft libraries?
That is probably not OK.
I know that, but I know too that the law doesn't have a term _probably_ in
it's dictionary.
Do we need to sign that or ASF
> -Original Message-
> From: jean-frederic clere
>
> Mladen Turk wrote:
> >
> > What about linking to static microsoft libraries?
>
> That is probably not OK.
>
I know that, but I know too that the law doesn't have a term _probably_ in
it's dictionary.
>
> > Do we need to sign th
Mladen Turk wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Henri Gomez
Here is a reply I got from the community list :
This is not a complete prohibition on all third-party jars or
libraries, but only on those third-party libraries which are
licensed under terms more restrictive than the ASL.
As
Henri Gomez wrote:
This is not a complete prohibition on all third-party jars or libraries,
but
only on those third-party libraries which are licensed under terms more
restrictive than the ASL.
In the case of mx4j, the code is licenced under the mx4j 1.0 License
[1], which
is a derivative of the
> -Original Message-
> From: Henri Gomez
>
> Here is a reply I got from the community list :
>
> This is not a complete prohibition on all third-party jars or
> libraries, but only on those third-party libraries which are
> licensed under terms more restrictive than the ASL.
>
Ask t
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Bill Barker wrote:
I agree with Yoav that we can afford to wait a few days (if only so I
don't
have to take down the 3.3.2 binary distro :). However, I don't think
that,
without the ASF changing it's position, we can simply add some lines
to the
LICENSE file. That may wo
Bill Barker wrote:
I agree with Yoav that we can afford to wait a few days (if only so I don't
have to take down the 3.3.2 binary distro :). However, I don't think that,
without the ASF changing it's position, we can simply add some lines to the
LICENSE file. That may work in C land, but in Java
at" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tomcat Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:54 AM
Subject: [5.0] Problems with the next release
Hi,
There are some problems with the next release, with the decision from
the ASF board to mandate that all ASF relea
This account does not exist
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 5:54 AM
Subject: [5.0] Problems with the next release
Hi,
There are some problems with the next release, with the decision from
the ASF board to mandate that all ASF releases are to be made of 100%
ASL 2.0 licensed components (as a side note, I
Hi,
>The options seem to be:
>A) Ship Tomcat 5.0.20 without JMX, and have it display a message with
>instructions on how to install JMX if it's not present (basically,
>everywhere but on JDK 1.5.0).
>B) Ship the binaries from non ASF servers (we could setup a project for
>that on Sourceforge). Th
I have to agree. the decision affects a lot of apache projects. I hope ASF board
changes the policy slightly and lengths the time for this to take place.
It's good to have Apache equivalents to many of the libraries being used in apache
projects, but it's going to take time. I may have to cre
Remy Maucherat wrote:
Hi,
There are some problems with the next release, with the decision from
the ASF board to mandate that all ASF releases are to be made of 100%
ASL 2.0 licensed components (as a side note, I'd like to add that this
is obviously a terrible decision). This has many conseque
Hi,
There are some problems with the next release, with the decision from
the ASF board to mandate that all ASF releases are to be made of 100%
ASL 2.0 licensed components (as a side note, I'd like to add that this
is obviously a terrible decision). This has many consequences and some
question
21 matches
Mail list logo
