You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org> on 2003/02/05 17:57:56 UTC
ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
[Retry with a better subject line and the proper mailing lists addreses
... sigh]
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>>In short, the answer is no, and this applies to any software with
>>>copyright of The Apache Software Foundation.
>>
>>which brings up a very good point that may have been overlooked:
>>this applies to anything on ibiblio or elsewhere that is copyright
>>the asf. it does not apply strictly to the repositories on the asf
>>machines, but to the asf *code*.
This issue has come up before. This time, let's flatten it.
In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to
be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to
the policies of the Apache Software Foundation.
Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
(the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
concurrency package.
Licenses clearly not conforming to the ASF's policies for distribution:
LGPL, GPL, Sun's Binary Code License.
Please direct any questions or comments (including new licenses to be
considered) to general@jakarta.apache.org. Some we can resolve for
ourselves (e.g., the specific public domain packages above). Others
I'll batch up and forward to the board and/or licensing folk.
By the board meeting after that (3rd week in March), I'd like to have
the infrastructure issues resolved (where should this data should be
hosted, mirrored, etc).
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> This issue has come up before. This time, let's flatten it.
>
> In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to
> be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to
> the policies of the Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
> (the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
> public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
> concurrency package.
>
> Licenses clearly not conforming to the ASF's policies for distribution:
> LGPL, GPL, Sun's Binary Code License.
Sam,
I am confused about the problem with licenses. I was hoping you could
help clarify. Maven was designed so that it could use whatever
repositories the user desires. The jars that Maven uses were purposely
put on iblibo by people who use maven (not Apache itself) so we would
not have to worry about license and distribution issues. Ibiblio is
clearly ok with distributing files with gpl, lgpl and other licenses.
It is the developer's responsibility to make sure it is compatabile with
their product or code.
My question is: Why does Apache care what repository the user uses and
what licenses are there? Apache has no jursidiction over ibiblio.
Cheers,
Dan Diephouse
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
Posted by Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> This issue has come up before. This time, let's flatten it.
>
> In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to
> be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to
> the policies of the Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
> (the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
> public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
> concurrency package.
>
> Licenses clearly not conforming to the ASF's policies for distribution:
> LGPL, GPL, Sun's Binary Code License.
Sam,
I am confused about the problem with licenses. I was hoping you could
help clarify. Maven was designed so that it could use whatever
repositories the user desires. The jars that Maven uses were purposely
put on iblibo by people who use maven (not Apache itself) so we would
not have to worry about license and distribution issues. Ibiblio is
clearly ok with distributing files with gpl, lgpl and other licenses.
It is the developer's responsibility to make sure it is compatabile with
their product or code.
My question is: Why does Apache care what repository the user uses and
what licenses are there? Apache has no jursidiction over ibiblio.
Cheers,
Dan Diephouse
Clear the air Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution
location]
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
This conversation is going in the wrong direction.
Sam:
The ASF has no juristiction over the Maven Repository. The most that
could be done is to say
"You can't use the word Maven in it". Its not on ASF servers, is not
"sanctioned" in any way. You could probably say "Maven you can't use
the Maven Repository" but what would that accomplish exactly.
We're going about this all wrong with out tone. Jason & co have built
something that could be very helpful throughout the ASF and approaching
this from the "You must do" type thing is not in my opinion effective to
approach the end goal. (and is WAY more in character for ME than for
YOU Sam, I'm very sorry to say)
Jason:
Your tone is way out of line and is very disproportionate. Sam's
contributions to opensource and to opening Java are pretty hard to
legitimately criticize and doing so serves no productive purpose.
The maven repository is the most compelling thing done in the last
several months and could be the most compelling thing in some years.
Congradulations. What some folks are trying to say is "we want in". If
you want to work with us (your fellow Jakarta/XML/Java Apache folks),
then we'll build something Java has needed since day 1. Obviously
you're aware of some of the problems with the Maven repository (in the
simple-minded approach to versioning/etc), and we'll help extend it such
that such problems go away. In exchange you get these things Mirrored
throughout Java-land. That includes iBiblio.
Now on the GPL and LGPL thing I agree with you completely. There is
nothing wrong with allowing their distribution, even off ASF servers.
The Sun thing, you're completely wrong. Sun sues people for dumber
stuff all of the time. I can hook you up to references for this fact if
you would like. In order to move foward we do have to stay legal.
What we all need to do is keep our eye on the ball. Jason, I want to
move all the jar files POI, Cocoon and other projects need, out of their
CVS. Yet I want them to play nice in gump. iBiblio is awesome but even
iBiblio gets bogged down some days (today for instance I was getting
908Bps [not kbps] on my rpm download). Having a mirrored, location
independant version of the repository could do some wonderful things for
Apache, Java, OpenSource and each of us.
What of it, Jason. Can we work together on this, keep the legal
concerns to a minimum (I propose distributing GPL and LGPL is okay, ASF
projects might not be able to use them, but there is nothing illegal
about distributing them), work on getting the pieces in play?
Nick Chalko who is one of my own personal favorites (despite him not
fixing commons-vfs's funky file error this morning) is talking about a
project to extend the maven repository in such a way that all Apache
projects could use it. I'd rather not see a forked effort. This is
something I'm pretty sure we can all agree on if we focus on the larger
effort/benefits rather than details.
In the end, the ASF gets to delete the duplicate jars from CVS and all
projects can use Maven, Centipede or some ant tasks to resolve their
depencies.
So Jason, are you willing to listen and maybe work with us on a new
project which IMHO is far more important than Maven, Centipede or
licensing arguments?
-Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 13:16, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Jason van Zyl wrote:
> >
> > The Sun Binary Code License issue I am looking into personally and will
> > either 1) add a click through license handler 2) Add the
> > non-distributable JARs feature back in or 3) remove them. These are a
> > problem.
>
> I don't see anything in the license that permits others to redistribute
> this with a click through license.
Netbeans does it so I don't see why we can't.
> > As for the LGPL and GPL jars what is the problem exactly. Ibiblio is not
> > ASF hardware what jurisdiction does the ASF have?. What juridiction do
> > you have at all? I put the repository there to avoid these problems. Why
> > are you trying to make it so difficult for people to build projects?
> > What are users supposed to do who need GPL and LGPL JARs. The Maven
> > repository is not for ASF code only, it's for all Java projects.
>
> Ibiblio can do whatever it wants. I don't want the ASF to be complicit
> with license violations. Sever the connection to ibiblio or correct the
> problem.
How is the ASF complicit. IT'S NOT ON ASF HARDWARE!
> > I've removed the JAF, JavaMail and EJB jars from the repository.
> >
> > Sam, just let know if there are others JARs I can remove to make it more
> > difficult for people to build their projects.
>
> I realize that you are not happy with the terms of the Sun license.
> Please do not direct that at me.
Yes, I'm directing it at you because you're the only person who seems to
making this as issue. Obviously Sun is implicitly ignoring the
redistribution of these JARs because it's happening all over the place.
You bringing this to a head is not going to allow Sun to whistle in the
dark and let it go. They probably don't care and they probably don't
want to spend any money changing the license because things just
generally work. You making a big stink about it and then doing zilch
insofar as contacting anyone at Sun to try and help with all your
purported clout absolutely sucks.
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jakarta POI audit.
Posted by ac...@apache.org.
Excellent. It took me about 15 minutes to prepare this audit. Because I
take my responsibility as a:
member (including my oversight responsibility)
Jakarta PMC member
committer
developer
POI-person
good citizen of the Apache community
seriously, I intend to perform this audit at least quarterly. I'll always
have them available on the wiki page so that my peers can review them:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPOIAudits
I've also created this page:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ASFAuditPages
for others who wish to do the same.
I expect to get a softer pillow out of this. Meaning because I know that
I've done my work and that my peers have reviewed it, I know that POI won't
be shut down due to liability concerns, that the Apache project's furture is
protected and that non-member committers to POI can rest assured that we've
done our best to protect their contribution.
I intend to invite other POI committers to either perform the audits or
collaborate on them (since its 15 minutes work I imagine the first will be
more common). This will help prevent the "ya ya" effect of
form-filling/cutting-pasting.
I invite anyone who has a question about the audit or is interested in how
to apply the same on their project to please write. I'll do my best to
answer any questions.
Thanks,
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Ruby" <ru...@apache.org>
To: "Jakarta General List" <ge...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Jakarta POI audit.
> Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> >>In summary, there are no controversial licensing issues for the Jakarta
> >>POI project itself. The only area of question is whether Centipede's
> >>use of LGPL libraries and POI's use of Centipede as a build tool
> >>constitutes a problem. We are eager to resolve this in the event the
> >>board sees this as a problem. It is our preference to continue using
> >>checkstyle unless there is an actual legal issue.
> >
> > (Not looking at centepede here) : POI can even use GPL for building.
> > There is an exception when a buildtool adjusted the content of the thing
> > it processes (don't get me on legal stuff here though :). It is written
> > down in the gpl fag on fsf.org.
> > httpd else would have to be gpl too, since it may use gpl'ed buildtools
> > to get it build, which is clearly not the case.
>
> Agreed.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jakarta POI audit.
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>>In summary, there are no controversial licensing issues for the Jakarta
>>POI project itself. The only area of question is whether Centipede's
>>use of LGPL libraries and POI's use of Centipede as a build tool
>>constitutes a problem. We are eager to resolve this in the event the
>>board sees this as a problem. It is our preference to continue using
>>checkstyle unless there is an actual legal issue.
>
> (Not looking at centepede here) : POI can even use GPL for building.
> There is an exception when a buildtool adjusted the content of the thing
> it processes (don't get me on legal stuff here though :). It is written
> down in the gpl fag on fsf.org.
> httpd else would have to be gpl too, since it may use gpl'ed buildtools
> to get it build, which is clearly not the case.
Agreed.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Jakarta POI audit.
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ml...@mvdb.net>.
>
> In summary, there are no controversial licensing issues for the Jakarta
> POI project itself. The only area of question is whether Centipede's
> use of LGPL libraries and POI's use of Centipede as a build tool
> constitutes a problem. We are eager to resolve this in the event the
> board sees this as a problem. It is our preference to continue using
> checkstyle unless there is an actual legal issue.
(Not looking at centepede here) : POI can even use GPL for building.
There is an exception when a buildtool adjusted the content of the thing
it processes (don't get me on legal stuff here though :). It is written
down in the gpl fag on fsf.org.
httpd else would have to be gpl too, since it may use gpl'ed buildtools
to get it build, which is clearly not the case.
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Jakarta POI audit.
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPOIAudits/20030205
Although its not official, I'm more or less the defacto current member
in charge of oversight for Jakarta POI.
Because there seem to be questions on a number of projects as to their
license usage, I thought it would be nice for me to go and audit POI
voluntarily. Although I do not like such issues as licenses and other
things, I realize that staying legitmate affects you my peers and all of
Apache and I do this as a service to protect myself as well as all of
you (you're welcome).
The Jakarta POI project uses the following:
under various subdirs of /lib
1. Commons Logging * (http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/logging.html) ASL
2. log4-j * (http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j) ASL
2. Xalan 2.2 ** (http://xml.apache.org/xalan) ASL
3. Xerces 2.2 ** (http://xml.apache.org/xerces) ASL
Although the following are not required for POI, they are used/provided
by Centipede (http://krysalis.org/centipede) at build time and for
generating our site:
under /tools/cents
1. Primarily these are centipede tools I am not delineating those as
they are just part of centipede
2. checkstyle - LGPL (http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/) - I was
unaware of this before the audit. Apparently Centipede uses this to
produce this: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/metrics/checkstyle/ - I do
not personally find checkstyle useful but other developers on the
project (namely Nicola ken) do.
It is my personal understanding that this is acceptable provided that
POI does not directly reference them nor the jar include or require
them. I would like direction from the board whether the use of build
tools which use LGPL is OK (POI itself does not use LGPL). If the board
requests I will disable the use of checkstyle (which will make Nicola
Ken cry). Also I would like guidence on whether just leaving it out of
our CVS repository and letting it be downloaded at build time is fine.
(it is the build and not POI which is using it)
3. javasrc - NO LICENSE (public domain) -
(http://home.austin.rr.com/kjohnston/javasrc.htm)
4. jdepend - BSD - (http://www.clarkware.com/software/JDepend.html)
5. junit - IBM CPL - (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ibmpl.php)
6. umldoclet - Public Domain -
(http://objectclub.esm.co.jp/uml-doclet/README)
* loaded optionally via some JVM parameters
** used for centipede and XML->Java record (value object of sorts)
generation in the build
In summary, there are no controversial licensing issues for the Jakarta
POI project itself. The only area of question is whether Centipede's
use of LGPL libraries and POI's use of Centipede as a build tool
constitutes a problem. We are eager to resolve this in the event the
board sees this as a problem. It is our preference to continue using
checkstyle unless there is an actual legal issue.
I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this audit.
Because I value your time, I will keep this on the wiki and provide
updates. You may find them here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?JakartaPOIAudits
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 13:16, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> I am requesting that the people contributing to Maven perform an audit.
> I would like to see that audit complete within two weeks.
>
> It is not difficult to find more license violations. Quite a number of
> the packages starting with the letter 'J' alone look suspicious.
If this is a board mandate, or Roy feels it is necessary then I will do
so if it is a legal imperitive to keep the ASF safe. I, at this point,
don't care about what you personally want or think. I think you've gone
off the deep end. Making a morass out of something that does not need to
be.
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> The Sun Binary Code License issue I am looking into personally and will
> either 1) add a click through license handler 2) Add the
> non-distributable JARs feature back in or 3) remove them. These are a
> problem.
I don't see anything in the license that permits others to redistribute
this with a click through license.
> As for the LGPL and GPL jars what is the problem exactly. Ibiblio is not
> ASF hardware what jurisdiction does the ASF have?. What juridiction do
> you have at all? I put the repository there to avoid these problems. Why
> are you trying to make it so difficult for people to build projects?
> What are users supposed to do who need GPL and LGPL JARs. The Maven
> repository is not for ASF code only, it's for all Java projects.
Ibiblio can do whatever it wants. I don't want the ASF to be complicit
with license violations. Sever the connection to ibiblio or correct the
problem.
> I've removed the JAF, JavaMail and EJB jars from the repository.
>
> Sam, just let know if there are others JARs I can remove to make it more
> difficult for people to build their projects.
I realize that you are not happy with the terms of the Sun license.
Please do not direct that at me.
I am requesting that the people contributing to Maven perform an audit.
I would like to see that audit complete within two weeks.
It is not difficult to find more license violations. Quite a number of
the packages starting with the letter 'J' alone look suspicious.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 12:30, Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 11:57, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
> > This issue has come up before. This time, let's flatten it.
> >
> > In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to
> > be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to
> > the policies of the Apache Software Foundation.
> >
> > Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
> > (the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
> > public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
> > concurrency package.
> >
> > Licenses clearly not conforming to the ASF's policies for distribution:
> > LGPL, GPL, Sun's Binary Code License.
>
> The Sun Binary Code License issue I am looking into personally and will
> either 1) add a click through license handler 2) Add the
> non-distributable JARs feature back in or 3) remove them. These are a
> problem.
>
I've removed the JAF, JavaMail and EJB jars from the repository.
Sam, just let know if there are others JARs I can remove to make it more
difficult for people to build their projects.
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: ATTN: Maven developers [was: primary distribution location]
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@zenplex.com>.
On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 11:57, Sam Ruby wrote:
> This issue has come up before. This time, let's flatten it.
>
> In two weeks, there is a board meeting. At that time, I would like to
> be able to report that the contents of the Maven repository conforms to
> the policies of the Apache Software Foundation.
>
> Code under the ASF License is clearly OK. As is the IBM Public License
> (the pre-Jakarta BSF, for example) and the MPL (Rhino). The following
> public domain components are also approved: Antlr and Doug Lea's
> concurrency package.
>
> Licenses clearly not conforming to the ASF's policies for distribution:
> LGPL, GPL, Sun's Binary Code License.
The Sun Binary Code License issue I am looking into personally and will
either 1) add a click through license handler 2) Add the
non-distributable JARs feature back in or 3) remove them. These are a
problem.
As for the LGPL and GPL jars what is the problem exactly. Ibiblio is not
ASF hardware what jurisdiction does the ASF have?. What juridiction do
you have at all? I put the repository there to avoid these problems. Why
are you trying to make it so difficult for people to build projects?
What are users supposed to do who need GPL and LGPL JARs. The Maven
repository is not for ASF code only, it's for all Java projects.
The Maven repository is not Maven. Ted Leung had the idea of using a
PORTs type system where the repository had pointers to the actual
artifacts but what you are saying is that we wouldn't even be allowed to
provide pointers to LGPL and GPL software because it's associated with
Maven which is a project at the ASF. That's just ridiculous? How is the
ASF at all liable for anything not on ASF hardware?
On what legal grounds could anyone make the ASF liable? I don't see how
this is possible? And given that is not the ASF's problem which is again
why I put the repository on ibiblio because I didn't want it to be a
problem for the ASF.
I assume that Roy is the most versed in the legal issues so I've cc'd
him here as I would like to know if there are any legal grounds under
which the ASF would be liable for anything done at ibiblio?
> Please direct any questions or comments (including new licenses to be
> considered) to general@jakarta.apache.org. Some we can resolve for
> ourselves (e.g., the specific public domain packages above). Others
> I'll batch up and forward to the board and/or licensing folk.
>
> By the board meeting after that (3rd week in March), I'd like to have
> the infrastructure issues resolved (where should this data should be
> hosted, mirrored, etc).
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
jvz.
Jason van Zyl
jason@zenplex.com
http://tambora.zenplex.org
In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational
and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it.
-- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org