You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2002/05/05 05:47:16 UTC
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] -
inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8811>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8811
inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
------- Additional Comments From steve_l@iseran.com 2002-05-05 03:47 -------
ok. I do think I understand GPL and LGPL, and have even released code under
it; I have even sat through talks where RMS explained why we should call linux
GNU/Linux, but not GNU/MIT/XFree86/Linux for reasons he never covered. But
clearly you think I got that phrase wrong. Feel free to add the
word "effectively" in there and submit the patch.
The doc tries to send the message that we dont care what license you release
your task under, but we can only link to non-(L)GPL stuff in the apache
managed codebase. The moment we link to one library or class that propagates
to the rest of the ant product, which would fundamentally change the ant
license, and have negative impact on the product Sun wouldnt include it in the
JWS dev pack; IntelliJ wouldnt include it in IDEA, etc, etc. Now, from a free
software perspective stopping proprietary systems from leveraging voluteers
hard work is the exact purpose of the GPL, and popularity without freedom is
nothing, but apache is playing a slightly different game: freedom from IIS,
and with, ant freedom from IDEs. Note also the recent issues regarding
participation in the JAva Community Program as a sign of Apache's commitments,
not just to Apache hosted projects, but to the needs of open and free software
developers such as the JBoss team.
Anyhows, like I said, if you want to submit a patch we can put it in the next
beta release of ant1.5.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
Posted by David Jencks <da...@directvinternet.com>.
On 2002.05.05 18:48:12 -0400 Conor MacNeill wrote:
>
> David Jencks wrote:
>
> >The area of licensing is confusing enough without misinformation. JBoss
> >has been LGPL since December 2000. As I recall, the change from GPL to
> >LGPL was made largely due to concerns raised on the ant list or by ant
> >committers.
> >
> >david jencks
> >
> >
> More likley to have been the tomcat list. There has never been a
> discussion of jBoss licensing on the Ant list that I recall (and I've
> been on the list from the start).
>
> Conor
Now that you mention it I think you are right, and it certainly makes more
sense since back then jboss's only servlet container was tomcat. So now
I've provided some misinformation also... just not about licensing..
sorry
david jencks
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL
in Licensing and Copyright section
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
David Jencks wrote:
>The area of licensing is confusing enough without misinformation. JBoss
>has been LGPL since December 2000. As I recall, the change from GPL to
>LGPL was made largely due to concerns raised on the ant list or by ant
>committers.
>
>david jencks
>
>
More likley to have been the tomcat list. There has never been a
discussion of jBoss licensing on the Ant list that I recall (and I've
been on the list from the start).
Conor
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
Posted by David Jencks <da...@directvinternet.com>.
On 2002.05.05 11:39:53 -0400 Steve Loughran wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick (Gus) Heck" <pa...@olin.edu>
> To: "Ant Developers List" <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 22:02
> Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL
> in
> Licensing and Copyright section
>
>
> > As I was reading this it caused me to wonder something. If a task were
> to
> > use an Execute.runCommand("foo"); where foo is a command that happens
> to
> > work under linux, does that constitute linkage from a licensing
> standpoint?
> >
> > What if the command also works on other platforms? Would it be
> neccessary
> to
> > actively disable the task on linux platforms?
> >
> > Since I am thinking of writing a symlink task which would mostly be
> useful
> > on Unix type systems that support a ln -s command, this could be
> important.
> >
> > Gus
>
>
> separate exes are not an issue; only linking, either directly or via
> reflection. Even then, you could get away with it if your component is
> designed to link to any implementation of an API, and someone happens to
> run
> it against GPL parts. Hence jboss being GPL doesnt make your EJB GPL the
> moment you use it.
The area of licensing is confusing enough without misinformation. JBoss
has been LGPL since December 2000. As I recall, the change from GPL to
LGPL was made largely due to concerns raised on the ant list or by ant
committers.
david jencks
>
> -steve
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
Posted by Steve Loughran <st...@iseran.com>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick (Gus) Heck" <pa...@olin.edu>
To: "Ant Developers List" <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 22:02
Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in
Licensing and Copyright section
> As I was reading this it caused me to wonder something. If a task were to
> use an Execute.runCommand("foo"); where foo is a command that happens to
> work under linux, does that constitute linkage from a licensing
standpoint?
>
> What if the command also works on other platforms? Would it be neccessary
to
> actively disable the task on linux platforms?
>
> Since I am thinking of writing a symlink task which would mostly be useful
> on Unix type systems that support a ln -s command, this could be
important.
>
> Gus
separate exes are not an issue; only linking, either directly or via
reflection. Even then, you could get away with it if your component is
designed to link to any implementation of an API, and someone happens to run
it against GPL parts. Hence jboss being GPL doesnt make your EJB GPL the
moment you use it.
-steve
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
Posted by "Patrick (Gus) Heck" <pa...@olin.edu>.
As I was reading this it caused me to wonder something. If a task were to
use an Execute.runCommand("foo"); where foo is a command that happens to
work under linux, does that constitute linkage from a licensing standpoint?
What if the command also works on other platforms? Would it be neccessary to
actively disable the task on linux platforms?
Since I am thinking of writing a symlink task which would mostly be useful
on Unix type systems that support a ln -s command, this could be important.
Gus
----- Original Message -----
From: <bu...@apache.org>
To: <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 11:47 PM
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in
Licensing and Copyright section
> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
> RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
> <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8811>.
> ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
> INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8811
>
> inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
>
>
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From steve_l@iseran.com 2002-05-05
03:47 -------
> ok. I do think I understand GPL and LGPL, and have even released code
under
> it; I have even sat through talks where RMS explained why we should call
linux
> GNU/Linux, but not GNU/MIT/XFree86/Linux for reasons he never covered. But
> clearly you think I got that phrase wrong. Feel free to add the
> word "effectively" in there and submit the patch.
>
> The doc tries to send the message that we dont care what license you
release
> your task under, but we can only link to non-(L)GPL stuff in the apache
> managed codebase. The moment we link to one library or class that
propagates
> to the rest of the ant product, which would fundamentally change the ant
> license, and have negative impact on the product Sun wouldnt include it in
the
> JWS dev pack; IntelliJ wouldnt include it in IDEA, etc, etc. Now, from a
free
> software perspective stopping proprietary systems from leveraging
voluteers
> hard work is the exact purpose of the GPL, and popularity without freedom
is
> nothing, but apache is playing a slightly different game: freedom from
IIS,
> and with, ant freedom from IDEs. Note also the recent issues regarding
> participation in the JAva Community Program as a sign of Apache's
commitments,
> not just to Apache hosted projects, but to the needs of open and free
software
> developers such as the JBoss team.
>
>
> Anyhows, like I said, if you want to submit a patch we can put it in the
next
> beta release of ant1.5.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>