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 time though...the real "point" is that I
spent 4 months trying to work on finding a way to work together with the GPL
and the APL license with some of the "top" people in the OSS industry as
well as trying to convince Justin Wells to either change to a MPL or APL
license.
Nothing worked because the GPL is simply unacceptable for many many people.
Justin refused to do anything to change the license to something that the
ASF would accept and he backed me into a corner where I had no other choice
than to simply re-invent his software. Now, at this point, I'm very glad I
did that because even though we may have forked the community for the short
term, we have certainly come up with a far better product for the community
for the long term as well as the fact that Velocity now has an ASF style
community which I enjoy much more than a single dictator style community.
Again, I'm not threatening that I will do this, but I'm warning Marc that
someone else will definitely be doing this if he doesn't watch out. There is
enough bad religious feelings about the GPL now and as far as I can tell,
very few bad religious feelings about the BSD licenses. This in itself has
already been proven to be enough cause to fork a project.
Based on past experiences, I'm predicting the future and I'm just worried
that Marc is going to continue arguing with people over this issue and
someone will come along and simply take his hard work and duplicate it.
Again, this stuff isn't rocket science. The rule so far is that it is far
easier to write something from scratch than it is to deal with license
issues.
I know that is wrong, but the current religious license views that people
have dictate that and I don't see it changing until RMS decides to change
the GPL to allow people more freedom with what they do with other peoples
source code.
FYI, on this page (below), GNU specifically states that the APL 1.1 license
is NOT compatible with the GPL license. So, Marc, whatever arguments that
you are trying to make about being able to work with the APL and the GPL
combined, you are wrong. It is clear that these two licenses cannot have
their source code together in any shape or form without potentially risking
the wrath of RMS or lawyers. It just isn't worth it to me to risk whatever
project I am working on on trying to work with GPL'd software.
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html>
thanks,
-jon
--
http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
