ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Hunter <jhun...@collab.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-ant/src/main/com/oreilly/servlet MailMessage.java
Date Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:09:39 GMT
Hi Stefano,

Good to hear from you.  If you don't mind, let's hash out the issues. 
(People not interested in open source licensing issues can tune out.) 
I'm curious about your justifications and reasonings (and those of the
community at large) since I believe open source will more and more
involve this kind of intermingling between different projects, and I
don't think one project fully absorbing the other project is always the
right approach.

> We have been preaching for years now that all java code donations to the
> ASF must:
> 
>  1) contain the Apache license "only"!

Can you explain exactly what you mean by this?  There are a few ways to
read it.

>  2) have a org.apache.* package name

Of course Ant uses SAX, JAXP, and other libraries that aren't in
org.apache.* (some aren't even open source) but that's acceptable
because they're included as compiled JAR files.  That means an
acceptable approach when one project doesn't want to be "absorbed" into
another is to bundle snapshots of that project into a JAR.  Maybe that's
the right approach for me to take; I just thought people might
appreciate having the code local to peruse, and even modify if they
wanted.

> >   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. 

I'm interested in your justification here.  Having the ASF as an
additional copyright holder grants them *just as many rights* as if they
were the sole copyright holder.  Having me as a copyright holder simply
grants me those same rights concurrently (allowing in this case me to
publish MailMessage in my book without printing the ASF copyright on the
top of the code listing).  What's do you see as the harm?  The Linux
kernel has code under many different copyrights, after all.  I made sure
to grant ASF copyright here so the license could be upgraded by the ASF
as necessary in the future without contacting me.

> Now, why should you differ?

Why should Jakarta be different than Linux?  :-)

> Again, please, don't get me wrong: you know how strongly believe in
> giving full credits to who deserves it 

Sure.  I wasn't doing this for credit's sake.  I was doing this so I
could reprint the code in my book without being bound by the Apache
license.

> 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.

Just FYI, I put it under the Apache license with ASF as a copyright
holder.  The issues we're discussing are the alternate package naming
and joint copyright, things which are allowed in other open source
projects.  I'm happy to abide by the rules of this project, but first
let's hash out the reasonings.  :-) 

-jh-


Mime
View raw message