You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ant.apache.org by Gunnar Boström <Gu...@telia.se> on 2000/10/11 15:41:00 UTC
basedir question
I tried to use the property ${user.name} in the attribute basedir in project
but it did not expand. Is it a bug or???
<project name="myproj" default="main" basedir="/mypath/${user.name}">
:-)
Re: Next release of ant
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
At 10:21 11/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Do anyone know when the next stable release is scheduled for?
Real Soon Now
;)
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Next release of ant
Posted by Vince Tutino <vi...@xelus.com>.
Do anyone know when the next stable release is scheduled for?
Re: basedir question
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>.
>>>>> "GB" == m <Gunnar> writes:
GB> I tried to use the property ${user.name} in the attribute basedir
GB> in project but it did not expand. Is it a bug or???
Well, Ant simply doesn't expect properties in the <project> tag,
should it? If so, call it a bug.
Stefan
Re: Ant gui tool
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
>> Also, does a GPL license create problems? Would that mean that the
>> jakarta project will be unwilling to link to it?
Anyone who uses GPL license can not use or link to Ant. This has been
discussed before and it is a deliberate limitation of the GPL. FSF does not
want people to link to projects like Ant because they are not copylefted.
So anyone who tries to release something that links with ant and is GPL is
breaking the law and undermining the integrity of GPL (and going against
the wishes of people who wrote the GPL)
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Ant gui tool
Posted by Jan Castermans <ja...@beta9.be>.
Saviely wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm thinking on writing a Swing gui tool for using Ant. I envision it as
> making xml editing less tedious to use, rather than totally abstrating
> away knowledge of ant; it would probably find its best use for non-unix
> people in the middle of the learning curve who still want to have a
> well-structured buildfile, without having to immerse themselves in the
> details of Ant and experiment.
>
> My questions are assuming my first release stands fairly well on its own,
> and is quite useful.
>
> For one thing, is this redundant? The logical progression of things
> nowadays is to GUIs, so I'd think it would be in the works.
>
> Also, does a GPL license create problems? Would that mean that the
> jakarta project will be unwilling to link to it?
>
> Thanks,
> Saviely
>
>
>
Isn't it easier to use an XML-editor with a valid dtd?
RE: Ant gui tool
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
At 11:06 11/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>2) The GPL is incompatible with the APL, so the ASF literally can't accept
>any code contributions that are GPL. Of course, that doesn't prevent you
>from creating an ant GUI and disctributing it yourself.
If he wants to do it legally it does. He is not allowed to distribute any
GPL code that links with GPL-incompatable code (Ant) unless Ant becomes
something that is considered bundled with OS.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Ant gui tool
Posted by Jeffrey Porter <je...@metadyne.uk.com>.
If you do create a GUI, I'd be interested in seeing it & possibly using it.
Are you aware of the ANTHILL project? there has been talk of a GUI
called ANTHILL, I'm not sure on the current position or progression of
it though.
Jeff.
Saviely wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm thinking on writing a Swing gui tool for using Ant. I envision it as
> making xml editing less tedious to use, rather than totally abstrating
> away knowledge of ant; it would probably find its best use for non-unix
> people in the middle of the learning curve who still want to have a
> well-structured buildfile, without having to immerse themselves in the
> details of Ant and experiment.
>
> My questions are assuming my first release stands fairly well on its own,
> and is quite useful.
>
> For one thing, is this redundant? The logical progression of things
> nowadays is to GUIs, so I'd think it would be in the works.
>
> Also, does a GPL license create problems? Would that mean that the
> jakarta project will be unwilling to link to it?
>
> Thanks,
> Saviely
RE: logging help...
Posted by ja...@livemedia.com.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
We're still using ver. 1.1 here & i don't see that option in
Main.java.
i'll check this out when we go to 1.2.
thanks,
james@livemedia.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@bost.de]
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 12:10 AM
To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: logging help...
>>>>> "j" == james <ja...@livemedia.com> writes:
j> i ended up just re-routing stdout & stderr to a buffer inside my
j> extension of BuildListener.
This shouldn't be necessary as no task is supposed to write to stdout
or stderr directly.
Or are you trying to replace the builtin logger? Try -logger instead
of -listener (Ant 1.2) and implementing BuildLogger instead of
BuildListener.
Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBOeckKpflVHdG6xJOEQLOHQCdH9SPf8FFKFdk7IN0RzlWVeJEvfEAnjOT
HheqkdMPlI2isd/HzJiQdkhJ
=Mp8s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: logging help...
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>.
>>>>> "j" == james <ja...@livemedia.com> writes:
j> i ended up just re-routing stdout & stderr to a buffer inside my
j> extension of BuildListener.
This shouldn't be necessary as no task is supposed to write to stdout
or stderr directly.
Or are you trying to replace the builtin logger? Try -logger instead
of -listener (Ant 1.2) and implementing BuildLogger instead of
BuildListener.
Stefan
RE: logging help...
Posted by ja...@livemedia.com.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thanks,
i ended up just re-routing stdout & stderr to a buffer inside my
extension of BuildListener.
james@livemedia.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@bost.de]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 11:20 PM
To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: logging help...
>>>>> "j" == james <ja...@livemedia.com> writes:
j> Where in BuildListener can i get the same information that is
j> generated in "-logfile"?
I'm not sure what you mean, messageLogged(BuildEvent)?
If all else fails, take a look at the source of DefaultLogger to see
where it get's its messages from 8-)
Stefan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBOeaq9pflVHdG6xJOEQJMzQCgrCXlE//qoHOSF51LpEWkXXMa3EcAoJ+c
6mE7cYwAsiiRgSKEEep/r125
=bd/+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: logging help...
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>.
>>>>> "j" == james <ja...@livemedia.com> writes:
j> Where in BuildListener can i get the same information that is
j> generated in "-logfile"?
I'm not sure what you mean, messageLogged(BuildEvent)?
If all else fails, take a look at the source of DefaultLogger to see
where it get's its messages from 8-)
Stefan
logging help...
Posted by ja...@livemedia.com.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Where in BuildListener can i get the same information that is
generated in "-logfile"?
i've tried things like:
public void taskFinished(BuildEvent be)
{
taskFinishedMsg.append(be.getMessage()+ "\n");
Throwable t = be.getException();
if (t != null)
{
be.getException().printStackTrace(tmpPS);
}
}
but can't get the same output i see in the logfile.
thanks for any pointers,
james@livemedia.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.8
iQA/AwUBOeZbrpflVHdG6xJOEQLUjgCdEiz4pLdJSrZPutpikL4wQRy5C4IAoMKI
YvafzOEgehsPOTT64J53T6IS
=7Onf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Ant gui tool
Posted by Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org>.
Thanks, everyone's comments have helped me refine my concept on this a
great deal. I will go check out Anthill and Xeena.
As for the licensing, it is very interesting... Though I have little
doubt I would go with the APL in this case. But I have no doubt it is
important to know the surrounding context.
Saviely
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Matthew Kennedy wrote:
> Saviely wrote:
> > For one thing, is this redundant? The logical progression of things
> > nowadays is to GUIs, so I'd think it would be in the works.
>
> I guess it's an XML editor that you're going to write. At the moment, I
> use Xeena (from IBM AlphaWorks). Given a DTD (or schema), it provides a
> Swing GUI for building an XML document. Required attributes are shown in
> red, and it keeps a list of elements in bold that are allowed next at
> the "cursor" within the XML document tree. ie. It forces a valid XML
> document. It works very well for me. Xeena can be customized further by
> specifying specific icons for elements in Ant's DTD. It can also apply
> XSL to your build file.... should you so desire.
>
> Matthew
>
Re: Ant gui tool
Posted by Matthew Kennedy <mk...@hssinc.com>.
Saviely wrote:
>
> For one thing, is this redundant? The logical progression of things
> nowadays is to GUIs, so I'd think it would be in the works.
I guess it's an XML editor that you're going to write. At the moment, I
use Xeena (from IBM AlphaWorks). Given a DTD (or schema), it provides a
Swing GUI for building an XML document. Required attributes are shown in
red, and it keeps a list of elements in bold that are allowed next at
the "cursor" within the XML document tree. ie. It forces a valid XML
document. It works very well for me. Xeena can be customized further by
specifying specific icons for elements in Ant's DTD. It can also apply
XSL to your build file.... should you so desire.
Matthew
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
At 05:57 12/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>The "fatal" line is:
> * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
> * the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
> * distribution.
>
>It is fine alone, but suppose I used an Apache license for a GUI tool, and
>stipulated it must have another copyright line, with my name. Then the
>user would see two copyright lines scrolling by. Supposedly, NetBSD had
>75 lines.
I think it may have grown - some of those distributions have a hell of a
lot of junk tacked on.
>I wish Gnu didn't use words like "fatal" and "annoying," it leads to
>fatally annoying flamewars. People should be smarter than that, but it
>only takes one bad mood.
But GNU believes that ;)
I have been on both sides of fence (am GPL / LGPL for c/c++ - APL for java)
and I think I understand both sides. Both have merits and problems. GNU is
our "saviour" whether we want to be saved or not ;) - GNU used to see APL
as better than proprietry but only marginally. They actually used to
encourage people not to work on Apache software and I suspect they still
would discourage developers ;). Aparently they (or more specifically RMS)
see Apache as the good guys according to Apache members that have spoken to
him.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org>.
On 11 Oct 2000, Jon Schewe wrote:
> Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au> writes:
> Which obnoxious licensing clause might that be? Also where may I find the APL
> 1.1 and 2nd BSD licenses? I'm interested for some software that I'm writing
> as well.
(I would have replied earlier but I was DoS'ed)
The best explanation I've found (from Gnu's perspective) is at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
The "fatal" line is:
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
* the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
* distribution.
It is fine alone, but suppose I used an Apache license for a GUI tool, and
stipulated it must have another copyright line, with my name. Then the
user would see two copyright lines scrolling by. Supposedly, NetBSD had
75 lines.
I wish Gnu didn't use words like "fatal" and "annoying," it leads to
fatally annoying flamewars. People should be smarter than that, but it
only takes one bad mood.
Saviely
>
> --
> Jon Schewe | http://eggplant.mtu.net/~jpschewe
> For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels
> nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any
> powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
> creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that
> is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39
>
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@locus.apache.org>.
At 08:28 23/10/00 +0200, you wrote:
>> >Please let me know how I can help you with that. I believe there are
people
>> >working on a free javamail implementation
>>
>> theres a guy at sourceforge who has done this. Not sure on license thou.
>Do you have an URL? I could not find it.
nope. The same guy is doing activation, infobus and mail apis under
something called OpenAPIs (or something similar). He was at sourceforge.
Look for that there. If you have no luck I will search my mail archives at
office as I have had discussions with him and I can give you his email addie.
>I am not that impressed with the results of the JCP, but I have to admit
>that Sun is playing this very smart. But I personally would rather work
>with free software then with the proprietary Sun stuff even though it
>is distributed as free beer. And there are a lot of people in the free
>software community that don't that Java that seriously because there is
>no complete free implementation. But we are slowly coming there. And don't
>forget that we might convince Sun in the end to make it an open and free
>standard. The Apache Foundation convinced Sun to release their Servlet
>implementation as free software (Tomcat). That is something I creatly
>respect and which I hope is only the beginning.
true - I see it as more of a practicality thou.
>I see what you mean. That is very offensive. Although a non-copyleft
>license such as the APL always allows people to do even worse things
>like releasing a derived version of the code as proprietary closed
>code which you cannot even inspect as you could do with an GPL version.
>But I think that people should just ignore such hostile forks of the
>code.
true but I actually prefer proprietry forks to a degree. At least there is
a chance that they will donate code back (most of them do if asked). If not
they still are good examples. Many a time I have pointed to incidents like
tomcat or to the fact that oracle is using so much stuff. With these
arguments I have been much more likely to convince them to go opensource.
Once they go opensource it is much more easy to make them go free ;)
>> >I hope you succeed (see above). But couldn't you just recommend those
>> >projects to use the APL minus the last two clauses (call it the
>> >unrestricted APL :). That would make those projects both GPL and APL
>> >compatible.
>>
>> nope. At least I don't think so. At apache everything is decided by
>> consensus. So even if I could do it I wouldn't want to. It is more a
>> "together we stand or together we fall" kind of atitude.
>
>If you cannot convince the libraries to change their license because they
>want to wait until the APL is GPL compatible you have to respect that
>of course. Does anybody know if the issue has been discussed on ApacheCon?
it only started yesterday IIRC so not sure. Thou the hackathon was on the
weekend and they may have discussed it then
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
on Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 11:19:38AM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> >not because the X license was not GPL compatible but because they were
> >afraid that the X consortium would make future versions of the software
> >non-free since the X license allows this to happen. So they urged people
> >to GPL their X software to prevent this from happening but the X consortium
> >did not accept GPLed contributions.
>
> right but the terms of the license were incompatable with GPL I thought.
> People who GPLed code that used the X core were not doing it legally as
> such. I could be wrong as I was never involved as such. I thought that it
> was perfectly legal to write proggies that used X just like it is perfectly
> legal to write programs that used libc ... but combining it with core was a
> no no.
Combining code under the MIT X license and under the GPL is no problem
since the MIT X license contains no more restrictions then the GPL.
> >Please let me know how I can help you with that. I believe there are people
> >working on a free javamail implementation
>
> theres a guy at sourceforge who has done this. Not sure on license thou.
Do you have an URL? I could not find it.
> >, but jndi and
> >activation are big projects.
>
> the same guy did activation and if not I have a 50% clone of activation
> sitting about.
Great!
> >The greatest barrier will be a free Swing implementation.
>
> However I long ago learned the pointlessness of such endeavors. Sun and the
> new JCP are churning out too much good quality code for free software to
> keep up. Worse is that the people who would've at one stage worked on free
> implementations are now working with JCP. So you either accept sub-standrd
> environment or just use suns libraries. Most of suns libraries are under a
> free (as in beer) license so it is too much to ask to go against that. Even
> worse is that sun holds patents that restrict free implementation of
> various libraries (ie jini and some rmi aspects) and thus you can only use
> them if you use suns version.
I am not that impressed with the results of the JCP, but I have to admit
that Sun is playing this very smart. But I personally would rather work
with free software then with the proprietary Sun stuff even though it
is distributed as free beer. And there are a lot of people in the free
software community that don't that Java that seriously because there is
no complete free implementation. But we are slowly coming there. And don't
forget that we might convince Sun in the end to make it an open and free
standard. The Apache Foundation convinced Sun to release their Servlet
implementation as free software (Tomcat). That is something I creatly
respect and which I hope is only the beginning.
> >But I am sure we will see it in the end. I try to do some work on the
> >Classpath (now merged with libgcj) project and I am very impressed with
> >how complete their 1.2 library support is (often more complete then the
> >kaffe libraries).
>
> yep. I worked with classpath stuff for a bit when I decided to write my own
> VM and found it fairly good except that it has mixed libraries (ie
> partially 1.0, partially 1.1, partially 1.2 etc)
Hopefully after GCC 3.0 is released which will include the native code
gcj compiler and the libgcj library that merged with classpath it will
improve even more. (But it will be at least a couple of months before
that happens.)
> >But I also believe that people should be free to choose the license they
> >want. And sometimes you have to work with GPLed code and have to respect
> >the wishes of the original authors and not use GPL incompatible code.
>
> right but it is also quite insulting in some cases. Consider this case. I
> use apache stuff and develope it further then I choose GPL to license it
> under so as to block apache developers using it. This has happened in past
> even by these "GPL" projects that were not really "GPL" and will most
> likely happen more in future. I find this offensive in the extreme.
I see what you mean. That is very offensive. Although a non-copyleft
license such as the APL always allows people to do even worse things
like releasing a derived version of the code as proprietary closed
code which you cannot even inspect as you could do with an GPL version.
But I think that people should just ignore such hostile forks of the
code.
> >I hope you succeed (see above). But couldn't you just recommend those
> >projects to use the APL minus the last two clauses (call it the
> >unrestricted APL :). That would make those projects both GPL and APL
> >compatible.
>
> nope. At least I don't think so. At apache everything is decided by
> consensus. So even if I could do it I wouldn't want to. It is more a
> "together we stand or together we fall" kind of atitude.
If you cannot convince the libraries to change their license because they
want to wait until the APL is GPL compatible you have to respect that
of course. Does anybody know if the issue has been discussed on ApacheCon?
Cheers,
Mark
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@locus.apache.org>.
>> X is in a similar situation to Apache - they want it to be free (as in beer
>> and as in freedom) but not copyleft. It was for a long time incompatable
>> with GPL but GNU did not encourage hackers to compete with it but allowed
>> them to cooperate. Eventually to get around the licensing problem (which
>> many "GPL" programs violated) they started considering it a system
>> component.
>
>The reason the GNU project didn't play nice with the X consortium was
>not because the X license was not GPL compatible but because they were
>afraid that the X consortium would make future versions of the software
>non-free since the X license allows this to happen. So they urged people
>to GPL their X software to prevent this from happening but the X consortium
>did not accept GPLed contributions.
right but the terms of the license were incompatable with GPL I thought.
People who GPLed code that used the X core were not doing it legally as
such. I could be wrong as I was never involved as such. I thought that it
was perfectly legal to write proggies that used X just like it is perfectly
legal to write programs that used libc ... but combining it with core was a
no no.
>> Around december I am going to start lobbying the PMC to change the few
>> clauses left that cause problems. However even if we can do this 90% (or
>> all ???) of the projects use proprietry code - whether that be javamail,
>> jndi providers, activation, etc which prevents licensing under GPL.
>> Hopefully the projects like xerces/xalan that are "pure" APL will be able
>> to be used by GPL projects thou.
>
>Please let me know how I can help you with that. I believe there are people
>working on a free javamail implementation
theres a guy at sourceforge who has done this. Not sure on license thou.
>, but jndi and
>activation are big projects.
the same guy did activation and if not I have a 50% clone of activation
sitting about.
>The greatest barrier will be a free Swing implementation.
However I long ago learned the pointlessness of such endeavors. Sun and the
new JCP are churning out too much good quality code for free software to
keep up. Worse is that the people who would've at one stage worked on free
implementations are now working with JCP. So you either accept sub-standrd
environment or just use suns libraries. Most of suns libraries are under a
free (as in beer) license so it is too much to ask to go against that. Even
worse is that sun holds patents that restrict free implementation of
various libraries (ie jini and some rmi aspects) and thus you can only use
them if you use suns version.
>But I am sure we will see it in the end. I try to do some work on the
>Classpath (now merged with libgcj) project and I am very impressed with
>how complete their 1.2 library support is (often more complete then the
>kaffe libraries).
yep. I worked with classpath stuff for a bit when I decided to write my own
VM and found it fairly good except that it has mixed libraries (ie
partially 1.0, partially 1.1, partially 1.2 etc)
>But I also believe that people should be free to choose the license they
>want. And sometimes you have to work with GPLed code and have to respect
>the wishes of the original authors and not use GPL incompatible code.
right but it is also quite insulting in some cases. Consider this case. I
use apache stuff and develope it further then I choose GPL to license it
under so as to block apache developers using it. This has happened in past
even by these "GPL" projects that were not really "GPL" and will most
likely happen more in future. I find this offensive in the extreme.
>I hope you succeed (see above). But couldn't you just recommend those
>projects to use the APL minus the last two clauses (call it the
>unrestricted APL :). That would make those projects both GPL and APL
>compatible.
nope. At least I don't think so. At apache everything is decided by
consensus. So even if I could do it I wouldn't want to. It is more a
"together we stand or together we fall" kind of atitude.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 12:02:48AM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> >I have never seen any purely political motivations for deciding if
> >a license was GPL compatible. Code distributed under the MIT X license for
> >example is always distributable together with GPL covered code whoever
> >distributes it. This is not specific to the X consortium.
>
> Right - but technically speaking this shouldn't be the case. FSF/GNU only
> allow this by considering it a system component (and covered by GPL clause
> 3). However even then you can not distribute X code together with GPL code
> unless it only links against X libraries (that are not specific to a
> particular server implementation).
>
> X is in a similar situation to Apache - they want it to be free (as in beer
> and as in freedom) but not copyleft. It was for a long time incompatable
> with GPL but GNU did not encourage hackers to compete with it but allowed
> them to cooperate. Eventually to get around the licensing problem (which
> many "GPL" programs violated) they started considering it a system
> component.
This is not why the MIT X license is GPL compatible.
The MIT X license and (modern BSD licenses without the advertising clause)
are compatible with the GPL because they don't have more restrictions then
the GPL. The reason old BSD (with advertising clause) and the APL (with the
you may not use the words XXX and YYY) are not GPL compatible is because
clause 6 of the GPL says: "... You may not impose any further restrictions
on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein...". Licenses with
less restrictions are by definition compatible with the GPL.
This has nothing to do with the system component (clause 3) exception.
The reason the GNU project didn't play nice with the X consortium was
not because the X license was not GPL compatible but because they were
afraid that the X consortium would make future versions of the software
non-free since the X license allows this to happen. So they urged people
to GPL their X software to prevent this from happening but the X consortium
did not accept GPLed contributions.
And in a way the GNU people were correct because in 1998 the X Consortium
(or Open Group) tried to release their new version of X11R6.4 as non-free
software. But in the end it didn't take the GPL to "save" the X code.
When these plans were announced the free software community responded
immediatly and announced that they would not work with the new X11R6.4
but would just fork the last really free version. In the end X11R6.4
reverted to the old free license.
Today the GNU project even recommends people to play nice with the XFree
people and don't use copyleft for their contributions to the core of the
project.
If you want to know more about this from a GNU perspective read
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html>.
> [...]
> depends - RMS is very very helpful until he decides he doesn't approve of
> your project ;) It has never occured to me but I have heard horror stories
> and many othre rumors. Many of them have to be wrong but I suspect there is
> a kernel of truth there. He has always helped me thou and always helped
> anyone that I am aware of that wants to release free software.
That is the strange thing. I have also heard these rumors but from my own
and other peoples experience with him I must conclude that these are just
rumors. Although I can understand that people find it difficult to work
with him because I have met him once in person and it is a lot easier to
exchange emails with him then to dicuss matters in person with him.
And he does seem to want to know every small detail before he will give
a definitive answer. So people with little patience will have a hard time
working together with him.
> oops - soz ;)
> I was possibly getting annoyed. Since I started discussing these issues on
> ant and other lists I have been getting a lot of flames directed at my
> personal mailbox. Many of them can be basically distilled to "You suck !
> RMS/GNU/GPL is god ! You are a fool/liar/idiot !" so I my patience is
> starting to run thin ;)
>
Thank you Peter. I was a bit afraid that this was going to turn into
a big license flame war. But you are a very nice person. Thank you for
responding to my email. I think I now understand your position much better.
And please ignore any idiots that send you personal flames.
> >Your other emails were very constructive and did offer suggestions on
> >how people could combine GPL and APL. We should try to concentrate on
> >offering people solutions like dual licensing or using a license (such
> >as the MIT X license or modern BSD license) that is compatible with both
> >the APL and GPL.
>
> Around december I am going to start lobbying the PMC to change the few
> clauses left that cause problems. However even if we can do this 90% (or
> all ???) of the projects use proprietry code - whether that be javamail,
> jndi providers, activation, etc which prevents licensing under GPL.
> Hopefully the projects like xerces/xalan that are "pure" APL will be able
> to be used by GPL projects thou.
Please let me know how I can help you with that. I believe there are people
working on a free javamail implementation, but jndi and activation are big
projects. The greatest barrier will be a free Swing implementation.
But I am sure we will see it in the end. I try to do some work on the
Classpath (now merged with libgcj) project and I am very impressed with
how complete their 1.2 library support is (often more complete then the
kaffe libraries).
> [...]
> It is ridiculous - people use the GPL to "protect themselves" and defend
> the "freedom fighters" but do this by attacking the integrity of GPL. Even
> when they are made aware that they are not complying with GPL they say fuck
> it and continue doing it.
>
> So please don't think I am attacking the GPL - I am more attacking the
> people who illogically think it fits all sizes regardless of legalities.
> Many of these projects actually release it under GPL to spite projects like
> apache and block apache sharing code (I know of at least 3 that I suspect
> did this). They also tend to use apache stuff despite that not being GPL
> compatable ! Baah - just frustration I guess ;)
You are right that people that use the GPL should carefully think about
what it means to use that license for their code. And I do believe that it
currently means that you cannot share code which is covered by the APL.
But I also believe that people should be free to choose the license they
want. And sometimes you have to work with GPLed code and have to respect
the wishes of the original authors and not use GPL incompatible code.
I personally work(ed) on the GNUJSP project and it was a real pitty that
we could not share some code with the Apache JServ people at the time.
But since all the authors respected the GPL so much and the Apache JServ
people were not willing to change their license to be GPL compatible
(they respected the APL) we were never able to merge some of the code.
With Paul Siegman I worked on a LGPLed servlet library that we wanted to
merge that with the Tomcat project when Sun released their code. But
when it became clear that GPLed code could never use the Tomcat code
we decided that we didn't want to work on code that didn't play nice
with some of the GPLed projects that were already using our code.
It is a very hard problem that has nothing to do with coding but does
prevent some cooperation (if you play by the rules).
> If it doesn't happen by the end of the year I will probably get off my but
> and do it myself and try to get it approved. At the moment there is a few
> GPL libraries I want to convert to APL but can't because other GPL
> libraries rely on them so you can be sure I will continue to try to get
> apache to make APL GPL compatable ;)
I hope you succeed (see above). But couldn't you just recommend those
projects to use the APL minus the last two clauses (call it the
unrestricted APL :). That would make those projects both GPL and APL
compatible.
And if you need any help writing that FAQ (from a more GNU perspective :)
please let me know.
Cheers,
Mark
Re: Any interest in an XSLT task?
Posted by Bill Brooks <wb...@lug.ee.calpoly.edu>.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, William McKenzie wrote:
> Seems like it would have good, generic usefulness and be pretty easy to
> implement using existing apache xml code. I haven't been following the
> group for too long, so forgive me if this is old hat.
It already exists, take a look at the docs for the <style> task. I'm
already using it heavily in my own projects for taking source documents in
XML format (the DocBook DTD) and producing .pdf files from them using
XSL:FO.
Since we're on the subject, though, I can't believe that anyone hasn't yet
written a <validate> task so that one can validate a build.xml file, a
web.xml file, or similar before handing it over to some other tool or
server that will choke if there are syntax problems in the file.
Or am I wrong? I'll be happy to write one for Ant 1.3 if it seems like a
useful feature.
Bill
Any interest in an XSLT task?
Posted by William McKenzie <ws...@cartewright.com>.
Seems like it would have good, generic usefulness and be pretty easy to
implement using existing apache xml code. I haven't been following the
group for too long, so forgive me if this is old hat. I'm personally
interested in using the xslt to generate different EJB deployment
descriptors for various vendors, based on a single xml source.
~Bill
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@locus.apache.org>.
>> Long story short what RMS saids tends to turn out to be "true". His opinion
>> has known to change overtime thou - sometimes over very short periods of
>> time. The opinion is however what guides the fsf and thus can lead to
>> "interesting" biases. For example it is acceptable to work with X
>> consortium but not acceptable to work with Apache. Why ? Political
>> motivations. See who runs X and how much influence they have.
>
>This is not my experience. When I emailed the FSF or RMS about licensing
>issues they would consult a laywer or put me in contact with one of their
>laywers that looked at it to interpret the different licenses and copyright
>law. I have never seen any purely political motivations for deciding if
>a license was GPL compatible. Code distributed under the MIT X license for
>example is always distributable together with GPL covered code whoever
>distributes it. This is not specific to the X consortium.
Right - but technically speaking this shouldn't be the case. FSF/GNU only
allow this by considering it a system component (and covered by GPL clause
3). However even then you can not distribute X code together with GPL code
unless it only links against X libraries (that are not specific to a
particular server implementation).
X is in a similar situation to Apache - they want it to be free (as in beer
and as in freedom) but not copyleft. It was for a long time incompatable
with GPL but GNU did not encourage hackers to compete with it but allowed
them to cooperate. Eventually to get around the licensing problem (which
many "GPL" programs violated) they started considering it a system component.
Personally I think they should do the same with java standard extentions
because then most of problems would go away (assuming APL became GPL
compatable aswell). The copyleft free software movement will never be able
to duplicate the standard libraries of javba because of the pace at which
java moves and because the development model is sucking away java
developers (even thou the sun community license is sooo bad in so many ways).
>They have always been very cooperative to explain the difficulties and
>suggest solutions when you want to distribute GPL covered code together
>with some other code. Maybe that has not always been so, but I think that
>the email that Jon Schewe forwarded to the list shows that this is currently
>certainly the case.
depends - RMS is very very helpful until he decides he doesn't approve of
your project ;) It has never occured to me but I have heard horror stories
and many othre rumors. Many of them have to be wrong but I suspect there is
a kernel of truth there. He has always helped me thou and always helped
anyone that I am aware of that wants to release free software.
>> [...]
>> you ever heard of sarcasm ? RMS/GNU does not approve of APL and discourages
>> anyone from using it or developing software at Apache. He used to be a lot
>> more opinionated against Apache a while ago and that was one of the reasons
>> it took me so long to begin to trust Apache.
>Sorry I didn't notice that you were sarcastic. I have now read some more
>of your emails on this subject and noticed that you do know a lot about
>the issues involved. But this email seemed to me to be just a flame against
>RMS with a lot of FUD.
oops - soz ;)
I was possibly getting annoyed. Since I started discussing these issues on
ant and other lists I have been getting a lot of flames directed at my
personal mailbox. Many of them can be basically distilled to "You suck !
RMS/GNU/GPL is god ! You are a fool/liar/idiot !" so I my patience is
starting to run thin ;)
>Your other emails were very constructive and did offer suggestions on
>how people could combine GPL and APL. We should try to concentrate on
>offering people solutions like dual licensing or using a license (such
>as the MIT X license or modern BSD license) that is compatible with both
>the APL and GPL.
Around december I am going to start lobbying the PMC to change the few
clauses left that cause problems. However even if we can do this 90% (or
all ???) of the projects use proprietry code - whether that be javamail,
jndi providers, activation, etc which prevents licensing under GPL.
Hopefully the projects like xerces/xalan that are "pure" APL will be able
to be used by GPL projects thou.
>And I really hope that some people can come together this ApacheCon and
>settle this once and for all. It would be so good if the APL would finaly
>be GPL compatible then we wouldn't have to have such discussion anymore
>and just combine code however we wanted. And making the APL GPL compatible
>isn't that diffucult. Either clauses 4 and 5 have to be altered to not
>state their conditions as extra restrictions (use the word please, not must).
>Or split it into a seperate copyright and trademark license.
Now I once was (and maybe will be in future) a defender of GPL or other
free + copyleft licenses but only if you play by the rules. However it is
not appropriate to java libraries atm. Of all the java GPL projects that I
am aware of only a handful (the gnu.* packages) actually comply. Have a
look at sourceforge.net for all java + gpl projects and check how many are
*really* GPL. You may find 1-2 in the 2-300 there.
It is ridiculous - people use the GPL to "protect themselves" and defend
the "freedom fighters" but do this by attacking the integrity of GPL. Even
when they are made aware that they are not complying with GPL they say fuck
it and continue doing it.
So please don't think I am attacking the GPL - I am more attacking the
people who illogically think it fits all sizes regardless of legalities.
Many of these projects actually release it under GPL to spite projects like
apache and block apache sharing code (I know of at least 3 that I suspect
did this). They also tend to use apache stuff despite that not being GPL
compatable ! Baah - just frustration I guess ;)
>P.S. Could we take this to another list (is there a general apache license
>list?) This has nothing to do with Ant anymore but I think it is important to
>discuss these matters since there will always be people that want to
>combine APL covered code with GPL covered code and distribute the results.
>I think it would be very good to make a FAQ about these issues.
Umm there are general-jakarta, general-java and general-xml and it is
probably possible to discuss it there. However I believe some of PMC will
be discussing it at ApacheCon (or perhaps right at this moment at the
hackathon) and will develope a FAQ/document discussing such details.
Hopefully it will eventually make it jakarta web pages.
If it doesn't happen by the end of the year I will probably get off my but
and do it myself and try to get it approved. At the moment there is a few
GPL libraries I want to convert to APL but can't because other GPL
libraries rely on them so you can be sure I will continue to try to get
apache to make APL GPL compatable ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 11:21:58AM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> I suspect that it is just a move to block people developing code under APL.
> >You make it sound like RMS personally decides if something is or is not
> >GPL compatible. The reason the APL and GPL are not compatible are legal
> >not personal. The GPL is only compatible with licenses that have as much
> >or less restrictions then the GPL. The problem with the APL is that it tries
> >to use copyright law to enforce something that should be handled with
> >an trademark (the you may not use the word xxx and yyy clauses 4 and 5).
>
> Ahh RMS doesn't decide he gives his interpretation of the law. The few
> times that I am aware the GNU went against RMS led to them recinding their
> actions in favour of RMS so ...
>
> Long story short what RMS saids tends to turn out to be "true". His opinion
> has known to change overtime thou - sometimes over very short periods of
> time. The opinion is however what guides the fsf and thus can lead to
> "interesting" biases. For example it is acceptable to work with X
> consortium but not acceptable to work with Apache. Why ? Political
> motivations. See who runs X and how much influence they have.
This is not my experience. When I emailed the FSF or RMS about licensing
issues they would consult a laywer or put me in contact with one of their
laywers that looked at it to interpret the different licenses and copyright
law. I have never seen any purely political motivations for deciding if
a license was GPL compatible. Code distributed under the MIT X license for
example is always distributable together with GPL covered code whoever
distributes it. This is not specific to the X consortium.
They have always been very cooperative to explain the difficulties and
suggest solutions when you want to distribute GPL covered code together
with some other code. Maybe that has not always been so, but I think that
the email that Jon Schewe forwarded to the list shows that this is currently
certainly the case.
> [...]
> you ever heard of sarcasm ? RMS/GNU does not approve of APL and discourages
> anyone from using it or developing software at Apache. He used to be a lot
> more opinionated against Apache a while ago and that was one of the reasons
> it took me so long to begin to trust Apache.
Sorry I didn't notice that you were sarcastic. I have now read some more
of your emails on this subject and noticed that you do know a lot about
the issues involved. But this email seemed to me to be just a flame against
RMS with a lot of FUD.
Your other emails were very constructive and did offer suggestions on
how people could combine GPL and APL. We should try to concentrate on
offering people solutions like dual licensing or using a license (such
as the MIT X license or modern BSD license) that is compatible with both
the APL and GPL.
And I really hope that some people can come together this ApacheCon and
settle this once and for all. It would be so good if the APL would finaly
be GPL compatible then we wouldn't have to have such discussion anymore
and just combine code however we wanted. And making the APL GPL compatible
isn't that diffucult. Either clauses 4 and 5 have to be altered to not
state their conditions as extra restrictions (use the word please, not must).
Or split it into a seperate copyright and trademark license.
Cheers,
Mark
P.S. Could we take this to another list (is there a general apache license
list?) This has nothing to do with Ant anymore but I think it is important to
discuss these matters since there will always be people that want to
combine APL covered code with GPL covered code and distribute the results.
I think it would be very good to make a FAQ about these issues.
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@mad.scientist.com>.
>> Unfortunately still yes. I asked a few people to prod RMS to see if he
>> would allow APL but he decided that it was not possible. The main reasosn
>> is that you can not take product X, modify it and call it X under APL - you
>> have to call it a modified version of X. According to RMS this is taking
>> away the freedom of developers.
>>
>> I suspect that it is just a move to block people developing code under APL.
>You make it sound like RMS personally decides if something is or is not
>GPL compatible. The reason the APL and GPL are not compatible are legal
>not personal. The GPL is only compatible with licenses that have as much
>or less restrictions then the GPL. The problem with the APL is that it tries
>to use copyright law to enforce something that should be handled with
>an trademark (the you may not use the word xxx and yyy clauses 4 and 5).
Ahh RMS doesn't decide he gives his interpretation of the law. The few
times that I am aware the GNU went against RMS led to them recinding their
actions in favour of RMS so ...
Long story short what RMS saids tends to turn out to be "true". His opinion
has known to change overtime thou - sometimes over very short periods of
time. The opinion is however what guides the fsf and thus can lead to
"interesting" biases. For example it is acceptable to work with X
consortium but not acceptable to work with Apache. Why ? Political
motivations. See who runs X and how much influence they have.
>> RMS at one stage was very vocal in trying to stop people working for APL
>> like projects - while he allows exceptions for some libraries for political
>> reasons (ie ones KDE build on or X consortiums derived software) - Apache
>> is not one of the blessed and thus he encourages all developers to fight
>> against Apaches oppressive restrictions ;] No true GNU supporter is meant
>> to develope code under APL and thus the reasons why he is throwing so many
>> roadblocks in way. Apache has changed and revised license once already and
>> tried to do it again to suit RMS but he will not be happy with anything but
>> the GPL.
>That is just not true. Of course RMS likes projects to use the GPL.
>And of course he likes it when licenses are compatible so people can
>freely combine code. And since the APL is not compatible with the
>GPL he urges people to not write new software using it. But the FSF
>does see it as a free software license (which it is!) with some small
>practical problems (which it has).
you ever heard of sarcasm ? RMS/GNU does not approve of APL and discourages
anyone from using it or developing software at Apache. He used to be a lot
more opinionated against Apache a while ago and that was one of the reasons
it took me so long to begin to trust Apache.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 21, 2000 at 01:22:16AM +1000, Peter Donald wrote:
> At 08:16 20/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >I'm sorry to have brought this whole thing up again, but is there any
> >incompatibility between LGPL and APL? And is it possible to do a combination
> >license GPL/APL? Would there be any advantage in this?
>
> Unfortunately still yes. I asked a few people to prod RMS to see if he
> would allow APL but he decided that it was not possible. The main reasosn
> is that you can not take product X, modify it and call it X under APL - you
> have to call it a modified version of X. According to RMS this is taking
> away the freedom of developers.
>
> I suspect that it is just a move to block people developing code under APL.
You make it sound like RMS personally decides if something is or is not
GPL compatible. The reason the APL and GPL are not compatible are legal
not personal. The GPL is only compatible with licenses that have as much
or less restrictions then the GPL. The problem with the APL is that it tries
to use copyright law to enforce something that should be handled with
an trademark (the you may not use the word xxx and yyy clauses 4 and 5).
> RMS at one stage was very vocal in trying to stop people working for APL
> like projects - while he allows exceptions for some libraries for political
> reasons (ie ones KDE build on or X consortiums derived software) - Apache
> is not one of the blessed and thus he encourages all developers to fight
> against Apaches oppressive restrictions ;] No true GNU supporter is meant
> to develope code under APL and thus the reasons why he is throwing so many
> roadblocks in way. Apache has changed and revised license once already and
> tried to do it again to suit RMS but he will not be happy with anything but
> the GPL.
That is just not true. Of course RMS likes projects to use the GPL.
And of course he likes it when licenses are compatible so people can
freely combine code. And since the APL is not compatible with the
GPL he urges people to not write new software using it. But the FSF
does see it as a free software license (which it is!) with some small
practical problems (which it has).
I emailed with Brian Behlendorf and he said that the ASF wants the APL
to be compatible with the GPL. (This could be as easy as changing the
"must not call.." into "please don't call..." in clauses 4 and 5.)
So hopefully in the future this incompatibility won't be a problem
any more. The more people that can use code covered by the APL the better.
Cheers,
Mark
RE: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@locus.apache.org>.
>Do you mean that if I were the sole author of a piece of software, and
>released it under license A, then later decided I didn't like license A, I
>could then re-release it under license B?
yep - as long as you had not accepted any "siginificant" changes from
others. The definition of "significant" is left up to a court of law ;).
Basically this means that if the changes give the contributor a copyright
on code then you both have to agree to relicense it.
> I guess I was under the
>impression that once you released a piece of software under a given license,
>that constituted some kind of implicit contract between the author and any
>users, and as such, the license could not be changed.
license can always be changed by copyright holders - practicality may stop
it thou in the case of many copyright holders. If you do a release under a
particular license (release A) then it will stay under that license (unless
a clause of license stated that it was time limited or had other
restrictions). However you can make another release under another license
providing all copyright owners agree or remove their code.
There are a few projects that underwen major changes with multiple
contributors/copyright holders. In this case the projects generally have a
period of 3-6 months where the developers are given oportunity to replace
or remove code whos copyright can not be determined or whos holders do not
consent. I believe Mesa3d (an opengl clone) was one such project
(www.mesa3d.org).
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Jon Schewe <jp...@eggplant.mtu.net>.
Peter Donald <do...@locus.apache.org> writes:
> >Here's a positive such email I got:
> >-- start copy --
> >Jon Schewe wrote:
> >
> >> I'm working on writing a java preprocessor and would like to use two
> >> libraries that are licensed under LGPL in the program. I also would like
> >> to release my software under the APL(Apache Public License). Part of the
> >> reason for this is that I want to be able to create extra modules that for
> >> an application that licensed under APL that use my application. Is this
> >> legal under the terms of LGPL? Or do I need to use other libraries? I
> >> have read the LGPL and it appears that I can do this,
> >
> >If your software is a "work that uses the LGPL'ed libraries", than the LGPL
> >permits linking your APL'ed code with it, as long as you obey the terms of
> >the LGPL (e.g., by including the source of all LGPL'ed libraries in your
> >distribution).
> >
> >
> >BTW, I hope that you will choose to release your software under a dual
> >license, such as (LGPL|APL).
> >
> >I ask this because the APL is incompatible with the GPL, and if someone
> >wants to use your software in a GPL'ed program, they would not be permitted
> >to do so if you released it solely under the APL.
> >
> >--- end copy ---
>
> right - that discusses LGPL not GPL. It also did not mention points such as
> what else you are linking to.
>
> It also did not indicate the date of this ? Because it *seems* that this is
> recent ? A while back GNU stated that because of javas linking model LGPL
> == GPL but from the above statement it seems that this has changed ? I went
> searching for original docs stating this a while ago and noticed they had
> disappeared - so maybe their opinion on this has changed.
>
This message was recieved this morning. I'm just linking to the java library
gnu-getopt, I used to link to gnu-regexp then decided it was overhead that I
didn't need.
--
Jon Schewe | http://eggplant.mtu.net/~jpschewe
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels
nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any
powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that
is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@locus.apache.org>.
>Here's a positive such email I got:
>-- start copy --
>Jon Schewe wrote:
>
>> I'm working on writing a java preprocessor and would like to use two
>> libraries that are licensed under LGPL in the program. I also would like
>> to release my software under the APL(Apache Public License). Part of the
>> reason for this is that I want to be able to create extra modules that for
>> an application that licensed under APL that use my application. Is this
>> legal under the terms of LGPL? Or do I need to use other libraries? I
>> have read the LGPL and it appears that I can do this,
>
>If your software is a "work that uses the LGPL'ed libraries", than the LGPL
>permits linking your APL'ed code with it, as long as you obey the terms of
>the LGPL (e.g., by including the source of all LGPL'ed libraries in your
>distribution).
>
>
>BTW, I hope that you will choose to release your software under a dual
>license, such as (LGPL|APL).
>
>I ask this because the APL is incompatible with the GPL, and if someone
>wants to use your software in a GPL'ed program, they would not be permitted
>to do so if you released it solely under the APL.
>
>--- end copy ---
right - that discusses LGPL not GPL. It also did not mention points such as
what else you are linking to.
It also did not indicate the date of this ? Because it *seems* that this is
recent ? A while back GNU stated that because of javas linking model LGPL
== GPL but from the above statement it seems that this has changed ? I went
searching for original docs stating this a while ago and noticed they had
disappeared - so maybe their opinion on this has changed.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Jon Schewe <jp...@eggplant.mtu.net>.
Peter Donald <do...@mad.scientist.com> writes:
> >I have been mailing licensing@gnu.org, and have been frustrated at their
> >continual requests that I clarify myself when asking very simple questions
> >(that they certainly get everyday.) Actually, I'm shifting the blame to
> >me; their words are that no conflict exists.
>
> can you post the emails or get permission to post them ? When other people
> have emailed them (such as Brian guy who runs apache and other people who I
> have asked to email them) the response has been negative. Generally they go
> straight to RMS thou so .... not sure. Thou GNU generally falls to RMSs
> opinions in long runs ...
Here's a positive such email I got:
-- start copy --
Jon Schewe wrote:
> I'm working on writing a java preprocessor and would like to use two
> libraries that are licensed under LGPL in the program. I also would like
> to release my software under the APL(Apache Public License). Part of the
> reason for this is that I want to be able to create extra modules that for
> an application that licensed under APL that use my application. Is this
> legal under the terms of LGPL? Or do I need to use other libraries? I
> have read the LGPL and it appears that I can do this,
If your software is a "work that uses the LGPL'ed libraries", than the LGPL
permits linking your APL'ed code with it, as long as you obey the terms of
the LGPL (e.g., by including the source of all LGPL'ed libraries in your
distribution).
BTW, I hope that you will choose to release your software under a dual
license, such as (LGPL|APL).
I ask this because the APL is incompatible with the GPL, and if someone
wants to use your software in a GPL'ed program, they would not be permitted
to do so if you released it solely under the APL.
--- end copy ---
--
Jon Schewe | http://eggplant.mtu.net/~jpschewe
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels
nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any
powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that
is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Mark Wielaard <ma...@klomp.org>.
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 22, 2000 at 10:58:41PM -0500, Saviely wrote:
>
> GPL v2, Para 3:
> "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
> include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable."
Note the last part of that clause: "unless that component itself
accompanies the executable". That means that this clause is only
relevant for proprietary systems since on free operating systems
like Red Hat or Debian GNU/Linux the executable always accompanies
the system components in the same distribution.
Cheers,
Mark
RE: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Chris Todd <ch...@christophertodd.com>.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Donald [mailto:donaldp@mad.scientist.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 9:06 PM
>To: ant-user@jakarta.apache.org
>Subject: Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
<snip>
>>My point still stands, it is possible to dual-license advantageously.
>>IIRC, there is also a clause that can be inserted in GPL'ed programs,
>>reserving that the original author may grant exceptions to the GPL on
>>whim. This may also be used advantageously.
>
>The copyright owner can always do this regardless of what license they
>place it under. The problem arises when they accept patches of more than 10
>lines. There is now 2 copyright owners and thus can't be done unless both
>agree. Now repeat this many times and you get the problem.
Pete-
I know this is getting off-topic, but the recent discussions on this and
other apache lists regarding licensing has been extremely informative to me
(being relatively new to open source development).
Do you mean that if I were the sole author of a piece of software, and
released it under license A, then later decided I didn't like license A, I
could then re-release it under license B? I guess I was under the
impression that once you released a piece of software under a given license,
that constituted some kind of implicit contract between the author and any
users, and as such, the license could not be changed.
Sincerest regards,
Chris Todd
Software Engineer
Alabanza Corporation
ctodd@alabanza.com
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org>.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Peter Donald wrote:
> can you post the emails or get permission to post them ? When other people
> have emailed them (such as Brian guy who runs apache and other people who I
> have asked to email them) the response has been negative. Generally they go
> straight to RMS thou so .... not sure. Thou GNU generally falls to RMSs
> opinions in long runs ...
GPL v2, Para 3:
"However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable."
Sun's SCSL v2.3, Para 3.d(i):
"Source. Covered Code may be distributed in Source Code
form only to another Licensee (except for students as
provided below)."
> The copyright owner can always do this regardless of what license they
> place it under. The problem arises when they accept patches of more than 10
> lines. There is now 2 copyright owners and thus can't be done unless both
> agree. Now repeat this many times and you get the problem.
You have worked as a Gnu developer and they have not told you the
solutions to this. If you wish to mend things with Gnu + Apache, then I
suggest that you request they be more forthright with legal specifics,
rather than having gnu.org serve as only a propaganda piece.
You apparently have written so much on the subject that I suspect it would
be a far better use of your time to be in the part-time employ of Gnu to
write a clarification section, with examples and such.
Saviely
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@mad.scientist.com>.
>I have been mailing licensing@gnu.org, and have been frustrated at their
>continual requests that I clarify myself when asking very simple questions
>(that they certainly get everyday.) Actually, I'm shifting the blame to
>me; their words are that no conflict exists.
can you post the emails or get permission to post them ? When other people
have emailed them (such as Brian guy who runs apache and other people who I
have asked to email them) the response has been negative. Generally they go
straight to RMS thou so .... not sure. Thou GNU generally falls to RMSs
opinions in long runs ...
>> Apache does not require anything to be "APL compatable" it only restricts
>> the way in which it is distributed (must state that it uses Apache software
>> in program and must not use same name as apache product if it has been
>> modified).
>
>I was told that anything under a gnu license woudn't be distributed with
>Ant. The clear inference was that GNU = APL incompatible, therefore can't
>be distributed with Ant.
nope. APL is GPL incompatable. It is not the APL that makes the restriction
but GPL. Read it again.
>There are a number of GPLed tools that produce buildfiles for later Ant
>processing. The inference also is that they wouldn't be distributed with
>Ant, though it is not illegal to make such tools.
right.
>Is this a minefield? Yes, so is proprietary licensing. It is likely
>unwise for me to have gotten into this discussion; people have such strong
>feelings on the subject that the best communication is with the licenses
>themselves.
don't worry I am ex-GPL guy. However at the pace java moves it is
impractical to use it here.
>My point still stands, it is possible to dual-license advantageously.
>IIRC, there is also a clause that can be inserted in GPL'ed programs,
>reserving that the original author may grant exceptions to the GPL on
>whim. This may also be used advantageously.
The copyright owner can always do this regardless of what license they
place it under. The problem arises when they accept patches of more than 10
lines. There is now 2 copyright owners and thus can't be done unless both
agree. Now repeat this many times and you get the problem.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org>.
> I am not sure you understand all the facts.
You may not be, but I am completely sure I don't.
I have been mailing licensing@gnu.org, and have been frustrated at their
continual requests that I clarify myself when asking very simple questions
(that they certainly get everyday.) Actually, I'm shifting the blame to
me; their words are that no conflict exists.
I am fully aware that I may have to use the reflection API or Kaffe in
order to use basic Java libs. I use reflection all the time when using
IBM's xml parser, to reduce porting time.
> Apache does not require anything to be "APL compatable" it only restricts
> the way in which it is distributed (must state that it uses Apache software
> in program and must not use same name as apache product if it has been
> modified).
I was told that anything under a gnu license woudn't be distributed with
Ant. The clear inference was that GNU = APL incompatible, therefore can't
be distributed with Ant.
There are a number of GPLed tools that produce buildfiles for later Ant
processing. The inference also is that they wouldn't be distributed with
Ant, though it is not illegal to make such tools.
Is this a minefield? Yes, so is proprietary licensing. It is likely
unwise for me to have gotten into this discussion; people have such strong
feelings on the subject that the best communication is with the licenses
themselves.
My point still stands, it is possible to dual-license advantageously.
IIRC, there is also a clause that can be inserted in GPL'ed programs,
reserving that the original author may grant exceptions to the GPL on
whim. This may also be used advantageously.
Cheers,
Saviely
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Peter Donald wrote:
> >Yes, it is quite possible to dual-license. Perl does this with the
> >Artistic & GPL.
>
> but perl is self-contained or only relies on "system" components (excepted
> by clause 3 in GPL).
>
> >Separate sourcetrees can be maintained, or the maintainer
> >can just reject any patches that are for just one license. (Someone else
> >can fork the code if they don't like one of the licenses.)
>
> yep.
>
> >The advantage would be that your program can be distributed with
> >say, Debian (who requires everything be GPL-compatible) and Apache (who
> >requires everything being APL-compatible.)
>
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) which is a similar
> definition used by FSF. APL is free software so there is 0 problem
> distributing it with debian.
>
>
> >Another advantage, if you have a fondness for the GPL, is that it raises
> >its visiblity, so more people can conceivably be educated on what the GPL
> >does.
>
> virtually all the people who use GPL in java projects misuse it. This
> "education" you refer to has occured and has resulted in a large number of
> projects claiming to be GPL but not actually being GPL. Because GPL is a
> legal minefield unless you know what you are doing and restricts you from
> using rudimentry capabilities in java then it is much better to use a less
> restrictive license.
>
> Projects who still try to use GPL-like licenses in java will try to
> copyleft on package/file/class basis and as was learnt in early days of GNU
> this is largely innefective in doing whta they aim to do and only blocks
> cooperation.
>
> >I didn't think it was wise to bring it up again, so I'm glad you did. ;)
>
> I am not sure you understand all the facts.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
> | to test a man's character, give him power." |
> | -Abraham Lincoln |
> *------------------------------------------------------*
>
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@mad.scientist.com>.
>Yes, it is quite possible to dual-license. Perl does this with the
>Artistic & GPL.
but perl is self-contained or only relies on "system" components (excepted
by clause 3 in GPL).
>Separate sourcetrees can be maintained, or the maintainer
>can just reject any patches that are for just one license. (Someone else
>can fork the code if they don't like one of the licenses.)
yep.
>The advantage would be that your program can be distributed with
>say, Debian (who requires everything be GPL-compatible) and Apache (who
>requires everything being APL-compatible.)
well ... debain does NOT require everything to be GPL compatable it
requires it to be free (see
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) which is a similar
definition used by FSF. APL is free software so there is 0 problem
distributing it with debian.
Apache does not require anything to be "APL compatable" it only restricts
the way in which it is distributed (must state that it uses Apache software
in program and must not use same name as apache product if it has been
modified).
>Another advantage, if you have a fondness for the GPL, is that it raises
>its visiblity, so more people can conceivably be educated on what the GPL
>does.
virtually all the people who use GPL in java projects misuse it. This
"education" you refer to has occured and has resulted in a large number of
projects claiming to be GPL but not actually being GPL. Because GPL is a
legal minefield unless you know what you are doing and restricts you from
using rudimentry capabilities in java then it is much better to use a less
restrictive license.
Projects who still try to use GPL-like licenses in java will try to
copyleft on package/file/class basis and as was learnt in early days of GNU
this is largely innefective in doing whta they aim to do and only blocks
cooperation.
>I didn't think it was wise to bring it up again, so I'm glad you did. ;)
I am not sure you understand all the facts.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org>.
On 20 Oct 2000, Jon Schewe wrote:
> I'm sorry to have brought this whole thing up again, but is there any
> incompatibility between LGPL and APL? And is it possible to do a combination
> license GPL/APL? Would there be any advantage in this?
Yes, it is quite possible to dual-license. Perl does this with the
Artistic & GPL. Separate sourcetrees can be maintained, or the maintainer
can just reject any patches that are for just one license. (Someone else
can fork the code if they don't like one of the licenses.)
The advantage would be that your program can be distributed with
say, Debian (who requires everything be GPL-compatible) and Apache (who
requires everything being APL-compatible.)
Another advantage, if you have a fondness for the GPL, is that it raises
its visiblity, so more people can conceivably be educated on what the GPL
does.
I didn't think it was wise to bring it up again, so I'm glad you did. ;)
Saviely
>
> Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au> writes:
>
> > >> APL 1.1 is basically 2nd BSD license. When most people refer to BSD they
> > >> refer to APL 1.0 or first BSD license that had the "obnoxious licensing
> > >> clause"
> > >
> > >Which obnoxious licensing clause might that be? Also where may I find the
> > APL
> > >1.1 and 2nd BSD licenses? I'm interested for some software that I'm writing
> > >as well.
> >
> > http://java.apache.org/framework/license.html and
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/license.html
> >
> > are examples of APL 1.1 . The obnoxious licensing clause said you had to
> > advertise Apache when ever it is included in a distribution. FSF hates this
> > as you end up with long lists of software advertising on boxes. APL 1.0 had
> > this. 1.1 has an acknowledgement clause that states somewhere in the
> > program you have to acknowledge you use Apache stuff.
> >
> > See www.gnu.org for their opinions on licensing. Apache is going to put
> > together a similar document at ApacheCon (a couple of weekedns away I
> > believe) so a similar document from another perspective will appear on
> > jakarta.apache.org soon.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Pete
> >
> > *------------------------------------------------------*
> > | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
> > | to test a man's character, give him power." |
> > | -Abraham Lincoln |
> > *------------------------------------------------------*
>
> --
> Jon Schewe | http://eggplant.mtu.net/~jpschewe
> For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels
> nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any
> powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
> creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that
> is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39
>
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
At 08:16 20/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm sorry to have brought this whole thing up again, but is there any
>incompatibility between LGPL and APL? And is it possible to do a combination
>license GPL/APL? Would there be any advantage in this?
Unfortunately still yes. I asked a few people to prod RMS to see if he
would allow APL but he decided that it was not possible. The main reasosn
is that you can not take product X, modify it and call it X under APL - you
have to call it a modified version of X. According to RMS this is taking
away the freedom of developers.
I suspect that it is just a move to block people developing code under APL.
RMS at one stage was very vocal in trying to stop people working for APL
like projects - while he allows exceptions for some libraries for political
reasons (ie ones KDE build on or X consortiums derived software) - Apache
is not one of the blessed and thus he encourages all developers to fight
against Apaches oppressive restrictions ;] No true GNU supporter is meant
to develope code under APL and thus the reasons why he is throwing so many
roadblocks in way. Apache has changed and revised license once already and
tried to do it again to suit RMS but he will not be happy with anything but
the GPL.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Jon Schewe <jp...@eggplant.mtu.net>.
I'm sorry to have brought this whole thing up again, but is there any
incompatibility between LGPL and APL? And is it possible to do a combination
license GPL/APL? Would there be any advantage in this?
Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au> writes:
> >> APL 1.1 is basically 2nd BSD license. When most people refer to BSD they
> >> refer to APL 1.0 or first BSD license that had the "obnoxious licensing
> >> clause"
> >
> >Which obnoxious licensing clause might that be? Also where may I find the
> APL
> >1.1 and 2nd BSD licenses? I'm interested for some software that I'm writing
> >as well.
>
> http://java.apache.org/framework/license.html and
> http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/license.html
>
> are examples of APL 1.1 . The obnoxious licensing clause said you had to
> advertise Apache when ever it is included in a distribution. FSF hates this
> as you end up with long lists of software advertising on boxes. APL 1.0 had
> this. 1.1 has an acknowledgement clause that states somewhere in the
> program you have to acknowledge you use Apache stuff.
>
> See www.gnu.org for their opinions on licensing. Apache is going to put
> together a similar document at ApacheCon (a couple of weekedns away I
> believe) so a similar document from another perspective will appear on
> jakarta.apache.org soon.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pete
>
> *------------------------------------------------------*
> | "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
> | to test a man's character, give him power." |
> | -Abraham Lincoln |
> *------------------------------------------------------*
--
Jon Schewe | http://eggplant.mtu.net/~jpschewe
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels
nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any
powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that
is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <Cr...@eng.sun.com>.
> >Which obnoxious licensing clause might that be?
I have heard this clause referred to as the "obnoxious advertising clause" rather
than the "obnoxious licensing clause" -- since that was apparently the way that
APL 1.0 stated it.
As Peter points out, this has changed in APL 1.1 which is the basis for the
license in all the current projects.
Craig McClanahan
====================
See you at ApacheCon Europe <http://www.apachecon.com>!
Session VS01 (23-Oct 13h00-17h00): Sun Technical Briefing
Session T06 (24-Oct 14h00-15h00): Migrating Apache JServ
Applications to Tomcat
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
>> APL 1.1 is basically 2nd BSD license. When most people refer to BSD they
>> refer to APL 1.0 or first BSD license that had the "obnoxious licensing
>> clause"
>
>Which obnoxious licensing clause might that be? Also where may I find the
APL
>1.1 and 2nd BSD licenses? I'm interested for some software that I'm writing
>as well.
http://java.apache.org/framework/license.html and
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/license.html
are examples of APL 1.1 . The obnoxious licensing clause said you had to
advertise Apache when ever it is included in a distribution. FSF hates this
as you end up with long lists of software advertising on boxes. APL 1.0 had
this. 1.1 has an acknowledgement clause that states somewhere in the
program you have to acknowledge you use Apache stuff.
See www.gnu.org for their opinions on licensing. Apache is going to put
together a similar document at ApacheCon (a couple of weekedns away I
believe) so a similar document from another perspective will appear on
jakarta.apache.org soon.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Jon Schewe <jp...@eggplant.mtu.net>.
Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au> writes:
> At 11:51 11/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
> >Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de> writes:
> >
> >> "S" == Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org> writes:
> >> S> Also, does a GPL license create problems?
> >>
> >> Yes, huge problems. We couldn't ship it with Ant and you'd violate the
> >> GPL if you shipped Ant with your stuff.
> >
> >Is there a difference between APL and BSD?
>
>
> APL 1.1 is basically 2nd BSD license. When most people refer to BSD they
> refer to APL 1.0 or first BSD license that had the "obnoxious licensing
> clause"
Which obnoxious licensing clause might that be? Also where may I find the APL
1.1 and 2nd BSD licenses? I'm interested for some software that I'm writing
as well.
--
Jon Schewe | http://eggplant.mtu.net/~jpschewe
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels
nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any
powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that
is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
At 11:51 11/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de> writes:
>
>> "S" == Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org> writes:
>> S> Also, does a GPL license create problems?
>>
>> Yes, huge problems. We couldn't ship it with Ant and you'd violate the
>> GPL if you shipped Ant with your stuff.
>
>Is there a difference between APL and BSD?
APL 1.1 is basically 2nd BSD license. When most people refer to BSD they
refer to APL 1.0 or first BSD license that had the "obnoxious licensing
clause"
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: licensing (was: Ant gui tool)
Posted by Jon Schewe <jp...@eggplant.mtu.net>.
Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de> writes:
> "S" == Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org> writes:
> S> Also, does a GPL license create problems?
>
> Yes, huge problems. We couldn't ship it with Ant and you'd violate the
> GPL if you shipped Ant with your stuff.
Is there a difference between APL and BSD?
--
Jon Schewe | http://eggplant.mtu.net/~jpschewe
For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels
nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any
powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all
creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that
is in Christ Jesus our Lord. - Romans 8:38-39
Re: Ant gui tool
Posted by Peter Donald <pj...@cs.latrobe.edu.au>.
At 05:07 11/10/00 +0200, you wrote:
> S> Also, does a GPL license create problems?
>
>Yes, huge problems. We couldn't ship it with Ant and you'd violate the
>GPL if you shipped Ant with your stuff.
Not only that it is a violation if you link to Ant and then distribute it
(regardless of whether you distribute ant or not)
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want |
| to test a man's character, give him power." |
| -Abraham Lincoln |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Ant gui tool
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@bost.de>.
>>>>> "S" == Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org> writes:
S> Hello, I'm thinking on writing a Swing gui tool for using Ant.
Look for AntHill in the archives of ant-dev (you should be able to
find a thread about this in September) <http://archives.covalent.net>
- maybe you could join forces with Frederic.
S> Also, does a GPL license create problems?
Yes, huge problems. We couldn't ship it with Ant and you'd violate the
GPL if you shipped Ant with your stuff.
S> Would that mean that the jakarta project will be unwilling to link
S> to it?
No, not unwilling to link, we just couldn't bundle them.
And then Frederic has announced that he's going to release AntHill
under the ASL ...
Stefan
RE: Ant gui tool
Posted by Chris Todd <ct...@alabanza.com>.
Saviely-
There was quite an active discussion about the compatibility of the APL and
GPL in exactly the context of a proposed Ant GUI on the ant-dev mailing list
about a month ago. You might want to check the archives at
http://archive.covalent.net and look for the Ant-gui thread in september. I
found it to be a very informative discussion of software licensing issues in
open source.
The short answers to your questions are:
1) At least two other people have an expressed an interest in developing a
GUI for ant (The ANTHILL project announcement was the one that kicked off
the ant-gui discussion on ant-dev last month).
2) The GPL is incompatible with the APL, so the ASF literally can't accept
any code contributions that are GPL. Of course, that doesn't prevent you
from creating an ant GUI and disctributing it yourself.
Chris Todd
Software Engineer
ctodd@alabanza.com
Alabanza Corporation
401 Market St., Suite 401
Steubenville, OH 43952
(740) 282-2971 x5218 or
(888) 839-7060 x5218
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saviely [mailto:calix@SDF.lonestar.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 10:51 AM
> To: 'ant-user@jakarta.apache.org'
> Subject: Ant gui tool
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm thinking on writing a Swing gui tool for using Ant. I envision it as
> making xml editing less tedious to use, rather than totally abstrating
> away knowledge of ant; it would probably find its best use for non-unix
> people in the middle of the learning curve who still want to have a
> well-structured buildfile, without having to immerse themselves in the
> details of Ant and experiment.
>
> My questions are assuming my first release stands fairly well on its own,
> and is quite useful.
>
> For one thing, is this redundant? The logical progression of things
> nowadays is to GUIs, so I'd think it would be in the works.
>
> Also, does a GPL license create problems? Would that mean that the
> jakarta project will be unwilling to link to it?
>
> Thanks,
> Saviely
>
Ant gui tool
Posted by Saviely <ca...@SDF.lonestar.org>.
Hello,
I'm thinking on writing a Swing gui tool for using Ant. I envision it as
making xml editing less tedious to use, rather than totally abstrating
away knowledge of ant; it would probably find its best use for non-unix
people in the middle of the learning curve who still want to have a
well-structured buildfile, without having to immerse themselves in the
details of Ant and experiment.
My questions are assuming my first release stands fairly well on its own,
and is quite useful.
For one thing, is this redundant? The logical progression of things
nowadays is to GUIs, so I'd think it would be in the works.
Also, does a GPL license create problems? Would that mean that the
jakarta project will be unwilling to link to it?
Thanks,
Saviely