BugRat Report #320 has been filed.

Bug report #320 has just been filed. You can view the report at the following URL: REPORT #320 Details. Project: Tomcat Category: Bug Report SubCategory: New Bug Report Class: swbug State: received Priority: medium Severity: cos

BugRat Report #176 was linked to Bug #45(apparently by:Nick Bauman)

BugRat Report #176 was linked to Bug #45 (logged in as:Nick Bauman) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

edit bug #45 by person #0 (logged in as: Nick Bauman)

Severity changed from 'critical' to 'serious'. Bug description modified: Description changed from: > 1. Download Tomcat3.2 Beta 4 binary 2. Compile SSLSocketFactory class and put into webserver.jar 3. do all necessary SSL set up according to server.xml 4. change SSL port to 433 in server.x

BugRat Bug #45 was closed (apparently by: Nick Bauman)

Bug #45 was closed by Person #0 Synopsis: Unrecognized SSL handshake (logged in as: Nick Bauman) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

BugRat Report #178 was linked to Bug #46(apparently by:Nick Bauman)

BugRat Report #178 was linked to Bug #46 (logged in as:Nick Bauman) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

edit bug #46 by person #0 (logged in as: Nick Bauman)

Class changed from 'suggest' to 'swbug'. Bug description modified: Synopsis changed from: > Auto loading jar files from the lib directory To: > Auto loading jar files from the lib directory for windows - To unsubs

RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

On Sat, 28 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote: > | What can I say? I agree that this is a reasonable interpretation. > |But I don't think it's the only interpretation, and I'm not sure it's even > |the interpretation intended by the authors. There's another section that > |specifically allows dis

RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

ok jon et al... it is trivial that APL software is incompatible with GPL, since for APL software to "contain, derive or modify" GPL software is not possible, we all agree on that. Aggregation of it is OK per the GPL. The point was and is on ordering of containment that I think is creating confu

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

Jon Stevens wrote: > > on 10/28/2000 5:22 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Once RMS finds out > > about the project misusing the GPL he will start advocating all the GNU > > peopls stay away from it. > > Someone want to send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] recommending that RMS

RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

|The amazing thing here is that the APL 1.1 license is one of the least |restrictive licenses out there and definitely much less |restrictive than the |GPL. So, we are asking to not go to a MORE restrictive license, but to a |LESS restrictive license. How can that be a bad thing? jon, True! it i

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

At 08:55 29/10/00 +0100, Rickard Öberg wrote: >Jon Stevens wrote: >> >> on 10/28/2000 5:22 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Once RMS finds out >> > about the project misusing the GPL he will start advocating all the GNU >> > peopls stay away from it. >> >> Someone want to

RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, marc fleury wrote: > > THIS IS WHERE THE GPL DRAWS THE LINE FOR VIRALITY > > 4 Aggregation is the weakest, it just means bundling of work. GPL doesn't > apply. > Which to me means that the closest together the two can ever be is if Tomcat talks to JBoss and vice versa vi

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Jon Stevens wrote: > on 10/29/2000 6:08 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Which to me means that the closest together the two can ever be is if > > Tomcat talks to JBoss and vice versa via a network socket. Then the two > > licenses can co-exist. Any code wr

Re: [NOISE] [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

An aside, There is, AFAIK, one good reason to use GPL over any other Open Source or Free Software license, and it's a very very good reason: To maximize the spread of the GPL. IOW, it's to forward the tenets of freedom in software development and to more or less declare that other software is o

Re: [NOISE] [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

on 10/29/2000 8:33 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > An aside, > > There is, AFAIK, one good reason to use GPL over any other Open Source or > Free Software license, and it's a very very good reason: To maximize the > spread of the GPL. > > IOW, it's to forward the tenets of freedo

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

on 10/29/2000 6:08 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which to me means that the closest together the two can ever be is if > Tomcat talks to JBoss and vice versa via a network socket. Then the two > licenses can co-exist. Any code written to accept a Java interface after > that netwo

RE: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

At 01:39 29/10/00 -0800, marc fleury wrote: ...some truly misguided stuff... Oh - so I take that as "No I haven't contacted lawyers nor anyone who knows what they are talking about". Well considering you have been made aware on a publically archived list you really will have no defense in court

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

on 10/29/2000 7:57 PM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right: we aren't talking about fine wine, rare stamps or gold boullion > here. The code has to move and be moveable to live, to be of value. I agree. > Marc insists that GPL protects young code. I don't buy that either. LOL! Tha

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

on 10/28/2000 11:47 PM, "marc fleury" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jon, > > True! it is not a "bad thing" and the APL is less restrictive. GPL'ing the > kernel makes sense for us as we fight an uphill battle. We put good code > and need exchange to grow... it is a "protect the young" kinda thi

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

on 10/29/2000 8:17 AM, "Nick Bauman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Futhermore, I can change what I think is "contained" and what I think is > "aggregated" in a Java program in a very technical fashion. So far I > think Jon has a very salient point. Thanks. :-) Let me re-state things one more tim

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

Hi, Lots of flames and hearsay from both sides, but also some very valid arguments. I think we should try to find out exactly where we agree and where we disagree. This discussion is too important to use for another flamewar about licensing ideologies. We can both agree that neither of us want

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

on 10/29/2000 8:46 PM, "Aaron Mulder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we should do whatever we can to make jBoss universally > acceptable. Because I want everyone in the universe to be able to choose > to use it, on the basis of its features not on the basis of its license. > > Aaron So,

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

on 10/29/2000 11:19 PM, "Ole Husgaard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we should try to find out exactly where we > agree and where we disagree. This discussion is too > important to use for another flamewar about licensing > ideologies. Right, but at the core of the discussion IS the licen

Re: [jBoss-Dev] Re: jboss on tomcat update

On Sun, 29 Oct 2000, Dan OConnor wrote: > In no way is the choice of license intended to prevent aggregation > with Tomcat, nor to the best of my knowledge does the board--or > the jBoss community in general--currently believe that this is the > result. This sort of opinion is not like source c

Path problem

Hello,   Sorry for a long mail. Please help me with this.   Problem:Our company has lot of small teams developing websites. we use a central jsp engine(tomcat) for development. In order to refer to pages we use relative paths and it is causing problems. this is the situation.   This