Mailing-List: contact cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Message-ID: <3BC6E4DF.5AF866B3@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:41:03 +0200
From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefano@apache.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cocoon-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: AW: [C2.1] new SOAP logicsheet
References: <200110111754.f9BHscZ28711@orion.rgv.hp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ovidiu Predescu wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 05:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Davanum Srinivas <dims@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Since "We have to eat our own dog-food". See attached Test.java that
> > uses httpClient from Jakarta commons to post the SOAP request and
> > gets the output successfully. I'd really appreciate it if you could
> > take some time to post a patch for switching to httpClient from
> > Jakarta commons.....
> 
> Oh, how I hate these licensing issues... 

I did too, until I understood that we are *all* in a very undefined
legal state and we are stepping on big corporations' toes. Apache *owns*
the web server market and this is, by far, the *most* important software
leadership in the world about economical ventures (even today after the
.com crash).

If we don't shield us strongly, it is very likely that corporations will
tear us apart with stuff like the DMCA and shit like that. Sure, we
could move the development in Europe for a while.

> I just hate when licensing issues in the free software/open source 
> world dictate over technical merits. 

Well:

1) the GPL is a restrictive license since it *forces* users to donate
their code as well. RMS' concept of freedom is honestly very different
from mine and from Apache's in general.

2) LGPL and java don't mix. This is one of the few "legal bugs" that the
GPL has but since GNU hates Java because it's owned by Sun, they don't
give a damn about these legal bugs and leave users in the void.

3) very few developers discuss license issues nor understand their
far-reaching implications. It was the same for me before becoming an
Apache member, but after seeing people jailed in the US for cracking
DVDs or PDF encryption, we all should be more careful than this.

4) all these license issues have *never* being tested in court and they
mostly depend on RMS's mood (and some ASF members', admittely) rather
than solid technical arguments (it's the legal field and this is how it
works, unfortunately).

I'd love all this to be avoided, you don't even know how much. But there
is not much that we can do about it.

> It looks
> like Apache is no better than FSF when it comes to licenses :-(

I personally consider this *very* offensive and untrue. 

Probably you don't know this, but by placing your code under ASF's
copyright, the foundation is going to protect *you* if something happens
on our code. It is going to pay the lawyers and all that stuff. It even
shields you from be liable yourself directly.

So, people, remember than when you receive committer status, you are
responsible for what you do, so also for those patches you place into
the CVS.

Legal protection is like medical insurance: painful and expensive, until
you or someone in your family gets hurt.

Think more about it.

-- 
Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
                          able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org