ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Patrick (Gus) Heck" <patrick.h...@olin.edu>
Subject Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
Date Sun, 05 May 2002 05:02:27 GMT
As I was reading this it caused me to wonder something. If a task were to
use an Execute.runCommand("foo"); where foo is a command that happens to
work under linux, does that constitute linkage from a licensing standpoint?

What if the command also works on other platforms? Would it be neccessary to
actively disable the task on linux platforms?

Since I am thinking of writing a symlink task which would mostly be useful
on Unix type systems that support a ln -s command, this could be important.

Gus

----- Original Message -----
From: <bugzilla@apache.org>
To: <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 11:47 PM
Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 8811] - inaccurate description of (L)GPL in
Licensing and Copyright section


> DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
> RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
> <http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8811>.
> ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
> INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8811
>
> inaccurate description of (L)GPL in Licensing and Copyright section
>
>
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From steve_l@iseran.com  2002-05-05
03:47 -------
> ok. I do think I understand GPL and LGPL, and have even released code
under
> it; I have even sat through talks where RMS explained why we should call
linux
> GNU/Linux, but not GNU/MIT/XFree86/Linux for reasons he never covered. But
> clearly you think I got that phrase wrong. Feel free to add the
> word "effectively" in there and submit the patch.
>
> The doc tries to send the message that we dont care what license you
release
> your task under, but we can only link to non-(L)GPL stuff in the apache
> managed codebase. The moment we link to one library or class that
propagates
> to the rest of the ant product, which would fundamentally change the ant
> license, and have negative impact on the product Sun wouldnt include it in
the
> JWS dev pack; IntelliJ wouldnt include it in IDEA, etc, etc. Now, from a
free
> software perspective stopping proprietary systems from leveraging
voluteers
> hard work is the exact purpose of the GPL, and popularity without freedom
is
> nothing, but apache is playing a slightly different game: freedom from
IIS,
> and with, ant freedom from IDEs. Note also the recent issues regarding
> participation in the JAva Community Program as a sign of Apache's
commitments,
> not just to Apache hosted projects, but to the needs of open and free
software
> developers such as the JBoss team.
>
>
> Anyhows, like I said, if you want to submit a patch we can put it in the
next
> beta release of ant1.5.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message