You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Jeff Turner <je...@socialchange.net.au> on 2002/03/06 22:46:51 UTC
[VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Hi,
As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
submit a patch.
--Jeff
Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
--------------------------------------------------
This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is about creating
communities that create great software. The ASL is a minimum legal necessity
that allows us to do this, nothing more. It promotes no political axe-grinding,
and has no great philosophy that needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents
such a small conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably becomes
"what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to misunderstandings,
holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive, and not fun, and why we find
licensing debates distasteful.
In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is encouraged to
read the GNU's philosophy pages (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is
wonderful, high-minded stuff that most programmers instantly resonate with.
Opposing RMS's vision of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a
puppy.
But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up to be a
bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it can. Due to the GPL's
extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules, GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated
into proprietary software. It must all be copylefted, or none of it can be.
In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:
creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
"community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products sold in
volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling software-based services,
not software. When you're selling a service, releasing the code makes no sense
to *anyone*. The code is mostly customer- or sector-specific, so is not
reusable, and of little interest to fellow developers. The customer *certainly*
doesn't want you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements
and potentially exposing security flaws to the world.
Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest possible
audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse input results in
software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability and the kind of
tough-as-nails quality we strive for.
Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL for
"everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and cooperation,
ultimately leading to better software.
For further information, please refer to the well-researched and well-written
O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
A good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book "Open
Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 21:07, Jeff Turner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:47:49PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> > My opinion is you've come across just about as objective as Richard
> > Stallman would be in the Microsoft Beta testing program.
>
> :-> Pretending to be objective is not my strong point.
>
> > No offense but this is EXACTLY the opposite of what is needed. Way too
> > inflamatory, partisan and counter-productive to the target of just
> > "explaining to the confused" as to what the differences are.
>
> My aim was not to give an exhaustive comparison. The O'Reilly and Perens
> pages do it much better than I could. I wanted to give an
> Apache-flavoured introduction to the debate, by introducing the main
> issue (GPL virality) and showing how that conflicted with Apache's
> community-orientedness. And then link to the real thing.
>
The question is: "How do you want to spend your time?"
Possible answers:
1> Fighting an "unwinnable" (defined as the argument having a logical
conclusion where one side overwhelmingly wins) religious war with the
GNU hordes (hirds? hurds? ;-) ). . .
2> Coding and documenting
I'd pick #2. Not scared of the Gnu, but *shrugs* no since in inciting a
riot for no reason. Such doesn't do anything for Apache, but does do
mounds for the GNU stuff...
If you're just bored there are plenty of things for you to do for POI
;-)
Anyhow, I DO applaud and appreciate you efforts...
-Andy
> > I kinda think the link off of the Apache Manual was fine...
>
> +1
>
> --Jeff
>
> > -Andy
> >
> > On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:46, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> > > inclusion on jakarta-site2.
> ...
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@socialchange.net.au>.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:47:49PM -0500, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> My opinion is you've come across just about as objective as Richard
> Stallman would be in the Microsoft Beta testing program.
:-> Pretending to be objective is not my strong point.
> No offense but this is EXACTLY the opposite of what is needed. Way too
> inflamatory, partisan and counter-productive to the target of just
> "explaining to the confused" as to what the differences are.
My aim was not to give an exhaustive comparison. The O'Reilly and Perens
pages do it much better than I could. I wanted to give an
Apache-flavoured introduction to the debate, by introducing the main
issue (GPL virality) and showing how that conflicted with Apache's
community-orientedness. And then link to the real thing.
> I kinda think the link off of the Apache Manual was fine...
+1
--Jeff
> -Andy
>
> On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:46, Jeff Turner wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> > inclusion on jakarta-site2.
...
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
My opinion is you've come across just about as objective as Richard
Stallman would be in the Microsoft Beta testing program.
No offense but this is EXACTLY the opposite of what is needed. Way too
inflamatory, partisan and counter-productive to the target of just
"explaining to the confused" as to what the differences are.
I kinda think the link off of the Apache Manual was fine...
-Andy
On Wed, 2002-03-06 at 16:46, Jeff Turner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
> thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
> O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
>
> Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
> sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
> suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
> submit a patch.
>
> --Jeff
>
>
> Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
> is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is about creating
> communities that create great software. The ASL is a minimum legal necessity
> that allows us to do this, nothing more. It promotes no political axe-grinding,
> and has no great philosophy that needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents
> such a small conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably becomes
> "what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to misunderstandings,
> holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive, and not fun, and why we find
> licensing debates distasteful.
>
> In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is encouraged to
> read the GNU's philosophy pages (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is
> wonderful, high-minded stuff that most programmers instantly resonate with.
> Opposing RMS's vision of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a
> puppy.
>
> But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up to be a
> bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it can. Due to the GPL's
> extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules, GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated
> into proprietary software. It must all be copylefted, or none of it can be.
>
> In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:
> creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
> "community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products sold in
> volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling software-based services,
> not software. When you're selling a service, releasing the code makes no sense
> to *anyone*. The code is mostly customer- or sector-specific, so is not
> reusable, and of little interest to fellow developers. The customer *certainly*
> doesn't want you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements
> and potentially exposing security flaws to the world.
>
> Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
> service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest possible
> audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse input results in
> software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability and the kind of
> tough-as-nails quality we strive for.
>
> Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL for
> "everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and cooperation,
> ultimately leading to better software.
>
> For further information, please refer to the well-researched and well-written
> O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
> A good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book "Open
> Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
--
http://www.superlinksoftware.com
http://jakarta.apache.org - port of Excel/Word/OLE 2 Compound Document
format to java
http://developer.java.sun.com/developer/bugParade/bugs/4487555.html
- fix java generics!
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote.
-Ambassador Kosh
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@socialchange.net.au>.
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 08:46:51AM +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> inclusion on jakarta-site2.
...
> Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
> sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
> suggestions welcome.
On second thoughts...
I'm sure most of us are sick of the whole issue, and are NOT looking
forward to another barrage of email on the subject :-) So preferably,
keep replies to a simple vote and one-line explanation. Constructive
criticism and change suggestions are still welcome, but let's keep that
off-list as much as possible.
--Jeff
> --Jeff
>
>
> Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
> --------------------------------------------------
...
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Posted by Jeff Turner <je...@socialchange.net.au>.
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:38:42PM +0100, Ceki Gülcü wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> Kudos for having the courage to proceed with this. Comments inline.
:) It's not easy or fun.
> At 08:46 07.03.2002 +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
...
> >Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
> >--------------------------------------------------
> >
> >This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
> >is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is
> >about creating communities that create great software. The ASL is a
> >minimum legal necessity that allows us to do this, nothing more. It
> >promotes no political axe-grinding, and has no great philosophy that
> >needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents such a small
> >conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably becomes
> >"what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to
> >misunderstandings, holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive,
> >and not fun, and why we find licensing debates distasteful.
>
> The license is very much part of the Apache philosophy. It may even embody the
> essence of the philosophy.
The license says, basically, "do what you wan't, but don't sue us, don't
abuse our name, and give credit where credit is due". That isn't much of
a philosophy ;) It hints at the underlying importance we attach to the
Apache name, but that's all.
> No need to be apologetic about discussing licensing.
Not apologetic, just reflecting a general lack of keenness for licensing
debates, because they usually end up in unproductive GNU-bashing.
> A good license is more valuable than a million lines of code. I maybe
> exaggerating but only a little.
>
> >In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is
> >encouraged to read the GNU's philosophy pages
> >(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is wonderful, high-minded stuff
> >that most programmers instantly resonate with. Opposing RMS's vision
> >of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a puppy.
> >
> >But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up
> >to be a bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it
> >can. Due to the GPL's extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules,
> >GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated into proprietary software. It must
> >all be copylefted, or none of it can be.
>
> A bulldog? :-)
Something with teeth :) But yes, bad analogy; will be removed.
> >In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:
>
> to (not in) *our* goal?
agreed
> >creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
>
> that write code?
okay
> >"community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products
> >sold in volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling
> >software-based services, not software. When you're selling a service,
> >releasing the code makes no sense to *anyone*. The code is mostly
> >customer- or sector-specific, so is not reusable, and of little
> >interest to fellow developers. The customer *certainly* doesn't want
> >you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements and
> >potentially exposing security flaws to the world.
>
> Hmm, are you sure we are only selling services? I dunno.
I claimed that "large parts of our community" are selling services, not
software. I don't know how true that is. I *suspect* it's true; that
there are more consultants here than people banging out commercial code.
I could be completely wrong. That's why it's so hard and dangerous to
claim to speak for anyone but oneself.
> Exposing security flaws to the world is very debatable. Most
> cryptographers consider "security-by-obscurity" as bad practice. I
> would drop the exposition argument.
Yes that was very much in my mind :) The detractors of "security through
obscurity" are usually talking about large commercial software. When you
have custom code written in a hurry on a tight budget, security holes
inevitably arise, and security through obscurity is better than nothing.
Though your first impression is how most people will see it, so I agree
it should be removed.
> I found the ethics argument in the Reese-Stenberg article to be very
> powerful.
>
> The original author has no *absolute* right on extensions and
> improvements. The fact that I wrote 100 initial lines of code gives
> me no right, moral, ethical or otherwise to impose a license on the
> 10'000 lines that you subsequently write. I certainly have no rights
> on 10'000 lines of *unrelated* code!
Indeed! But arguments of morality are even more treacherous than
arguments of pure pragmatism. GNU proponents would surely argue that the
means justifies the end. The goal of Software Freedom warrants a bit of
arm-twisting.
> >Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
> >service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest
> >possible audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse
> >input results in software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability
> >and the kind of tough-as-nails quality we strive for.
>
> The service orientation again. We can't know the exact motivations of
> developers for authoring open source code. Service-oriented software,
> maybe but maybe not. The service-orientation argument is correct,
> just not exhaustive.
Right, and the text needs to make that clearer. I chose the "service
orientation" argument (over the ethical argument, say) because it ties
in directly with Apache's inclusive, community-oriented goals. I wanted
to emphasise that the issue is "software Freedom" (GNU) vs. "community
and quality" (Apache).
> >Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL
> >for "everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and
> >cooperation, ultimately leading to better software.
>
> What is meant by "everyday" code?
It's a cop-out to avoid the implication that we consider the ASL a 100%
replacement for the GPL. I don't think that Linux, say, should abandon
the GPL. I want to say, "the ASL is more appropriate for the stuff *we*
do", nothing more.
> >For further information, please refer to the well-researched and
> >well-written O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
> >http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html A
> >good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book
> >"Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
> >http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
>
> The "Working Without Copyleft" article is remarkably good. The point
> about the FSF controlling the LGPL is another very significant point:
>
> The Free Software Foundation controls the license. They can release a
> new version of the license, which then will automatically apply to our
> software. Although we do not expect the Free Software Foundation of
> making changes that deviate from the spirit of the current versions,
> they could make clarifications that are contrary to our
> intentions. For example, they may clarify that the result of
> aspect-oriented weaving is subject to the terms of the LGPL, whereas
> we had intended that it is not. Another concern is who will be in
> charge of the Free Software Foundation 10 years from now, or what
> happens if the Free Software Foundation is discontinued? [LGPL,
> section 13]
>
> Licensing is a blackhole for time. It also happens to be central element in
> open source development. Its importance cannot be overstated.
Thanks for the constructive feedback, support and lack of flaming :)
--Jeff
> --
> Ceki Gülcü
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Posted by Ceki Gülcü <ce...@qos.ch>.
Jeff,
Kudos for having the courage to proceed with this. Comments inline.
At 08:46 07.03.2002 +1100, Jeff Turner wrote:
>Hi,
>
>As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
>inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
>thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
>O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
>
>Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
>sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
>suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
>submit a patch.
>
>--Jeff
>
>
>Why prefer the ASL to a copyleft license (eg GPL)?
>--------------------------------------------------
>
>This is an slightly distasteful topic for most Apache developers. The license
>is simply not a central part of the Apache philosophy. Apache is about
>creating
>communities that create great software. The ASL is a minimum legal necessity
>that allows us to do this, nothing more. It promotes no political
>axe-grinding,
>and has no great philosophy that needs defending. The ASL, in fact, presents
>such a small conversational target that any licensing debate inevitably
>becomes
>"what is wrong with license X". That inevitably leads to misunderstandings,
>holy wars and bad feeling, It's not productive, and not fun, and why we find
>licensing debates distasteful.
The license is very much part of the Apache philosophy. It may even embody the
essence of the philosophy. No need to be apologetic about discussing
licensing. A good license is more valuable than a million lines of code.
I maybe exaggerating but only a little.
>In particular, it's not fun rubbishing the GPL. The reader is encouraged to
>read the GNU's philosophy pages (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/). It is
>wonderful, high-minded stuff that most programmers instantly resonate with.
>Opposing RMS's vision of Free Software at first seems to be like kicking a
>puppy.
>
>But let's kick it anyway. It turns out that the puppy soon grows up to be a
>bulldog, biting and tenaciously hanging on to any code it can. Due to the
>GPL's
>extensive scope and 'viral' linking rules, GPL'ed code cannot be incorporated
>into proprietary software. It must all be copylefted, or none of it can be.
A bulldog? :-)
>In many cases, we at Apache find the GPL's virality a hindrance in *our* goal:
to (not in) *our* goal?
>creating communities that create code. This is because large parts of our
that write code?
>"community" are selling custom solutions, not shrink-wrapped products sold in
>volume for general consumption. Essentially, selling software-based services,
>not software. When you're selling a service, releasing the code makes no sense
>to *anyone*. The code is mostly customer- or sector-specific, so is not
>reusable, and of little interest to fellow developers. The customer
>*certainly*
>doesn't want you publicising their code, breaking confidentiality agreements
>and potentially exposing security flaws to the world.
Hmm, are you sure we are only selling services? I dunno.
Exposing security flaws to the world is very debatable. Most cryptographers
consider "security-by-obscurity" as bad practice. I would drop the exposition
argument.
I found the ethics argument in the Reese-Stenberg article to be very powerful.
The original author has no *absolute* right on extensions and improvements.
The fact that I wrote 100 initial lines of code gives me no right, moral,
ethical or
otherwise to impose a license on the 10'000 lines that you subsequently write.
I certainly have no rights on 10'000 lines of *unrelated* code!
>Thus, to adopt a copyleft license like the GPL would alienate the
>service-oriented portion of our community. We want the widest possible
>audience, not for "market share", but because the diverse input results in
>software with "hybrid vigour", wide applicability and the kind of
>tough-as-nails quality we strive for.
The service orientation again. We can't know the exact motivations of
developers
for authoring open source code. Service-oriented software, maybe but maybe
not.
The service-orientation argument is correct, just not exhaustive.
>Thus, we encourage users to adopt non-copyleft licenses like the ASL for
>"everyday" code, as it increases the chances of code sharing and cooperation,
>ultimately leading to better software.
What is meant by "everyday" code?
>For further information, please refer to the well-researched and well-written
>O'Reilly article entitled "Working Without Copyleft", at
>http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2001/12/12/transition.html
>A good general reference of open source licenses is Bruce Perens' book "Open
>Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution" at
>http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html
The "Working Without Copyleft" article is remarkably good. The point
about the FSF controlling the LGPL is another very significant point:
The Free Software Foundation controls the license. They can release a
new version of the license, which then will automatically apply to our
software. Although we do not expect the Free Software Foundation of
making changes that deviate from the spirit of the current versions,
they could make clarifications that are contrary to our
intentions. For example, they may clarify that the result of
aspect-oriented weaving is subject to the terms of the LGPL, whereas
we had intended that it is not. Another concern is who will be in
charge of the Free Software Foundation 10 years from now, or what
happens if the Free Software Foundation is discontinued? [LGPL,
section 13]
Licensing is a blackhole for time. It also happens to be central element in
open source development. Its importance cannot be overstated.
--
Ceki Gülcü
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: [VOTE] ASL vs. GPL page: is this okay?
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>.
"Jeff Turner" <je...@socialchange.net.au> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As promised, I've written up an "ASL vs. GPL" page, for possible
> inclusion on jakarta-site2. I've more tried to capture the spirit of the
> thing from the Apache POV, than duplicate the detailed arguments in the
> O'Reilly article referenced at the end.
>
> Please vote on whether you think the reasons outlined here are
> sufficiently representative. Constructive criticism and change
> suggestions welcome. If sufficiently approved of, I'll XMLify it and
> submit a patch.
-1, and I already pointed out my vision...
Pier
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>