ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-ant/src/main/com/oreilly/servlet
Date Sat, 24 Jun 2000 09:58:03 GMT wrote:
> jhunter     00/06/23 19:46:18
>   Modified:    .        build.xml
>   Added:       src/main/com/oreilly/servlet
>   Log:
>   Added MailMessage.  Hope people don't mind that I left it in
>   com.oreilly.servlet.

Sorry, but I do.

We have been preaching for years now that all java code donations to the
ASF must:

 1) contain the Apache license "only"!
 2) have a org.apache.* package name

>   I did that since it's going to be a mirror
>   of what's in the larger com.oreilly.servlet package.

We don't mirror stuff, Jason. We try to develop and maintain it. If you
donate that code to us, we are free to do whatever we want with it and
development will take place. If you mirror you fork your code: are you
sure this is what you want to happen?

NOTE: don't get me wrong, I _very_ appreciate your contributions and I'd
love to have all that nice org.oreilly.servlet code under our umbrella,
but we have being following this package-change practice and I picture
this very unfair about other projects that had to change their package
naming to adapt.

>   I put
>   it under the Apache license of course, and added the ASF as an
>   additional copyright holder.

Again, this is unusual and unfair for the other donated projects. All
donations imply that you move copyright to the ASF which provides legal
coverage for you. You should place all the credit issues you want after

* ====================================================================

in the license.

>   Code can have two copyright holders,
>   meaning either party can do as they wish with the code.  This lets
>   the ASF upgrade to Apache License 1.2 sometime in the future, and
>   lets me be able to use the code without thanking the ASF for code
>   I wrote.  :-)

There is something _very_ different between deserving credits for
something and a copyright statement. These are totally different things
around here.

People and companies like IBM, Sun, James Tauber, Kevin Burton, James
Davidson, Jon Stevens, Donald Ball, Ricardo Rocha, myself and many
others are people that wrote projects or piece of projects on their own
and _donated_ them to the ASF, giving copyright to the ASF while keeping
credits for themselves.

Now, why should you differ?

Again, please, don't get me wrong: you know how strongly believe in
giving full credits to who deserves it and I completely understand how
important is recognition and visibility in our world. On the other hand,
we have been following practices that are fair and cover all these
issues nicely, allowing all software development to take place around
here and all package naming to integrate seemlessly, giving the idea to
users that we are all a big family of collaborating projects.

So, again, while I fully appreciate your code donation, I'd like to
kindly invite you to rethink about your licensing issues now that you
know these things.

Thank you very much.

Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
 Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------

View raw message