cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Mazzocchi <>
Subject Re: License and patching/forking
Date Wed, 02 Apr 2003 11:14:37 GMT
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> On 1/4/03 23:36, "Stefano Mazzocchi" <> wrote:
>>Artur Bialecki wrote:
>>>Thanks for the info it makes things clearer for me. But lets say
>>>I do have to "fork" cocoon for the reasons you mentioned and I have
>>>to name it something different. Do I have to change all references
>>>to apache/cocoon in all the sources. (eg. changing
>>>to and all references to that class). This sounds
>>>like maintenance nightmare.
>>nono, as noted before, there is nothing in the license that covers
>>package names.
> I suggested it in a response to Gianugo.
> And not really sure about that... I noted it because IIRC in the past XML4J
> was a backport from Xalan-J 1.x and was using the package names for
> that reason... But either I am wrong, or someone gave some more
> clarifications higher up...

I think they did it to "play nicely" with us. IBM understood the 
community implications of not clearly separating XML4j from Xerces. (and 
also because, in case they lost control of the community, they had a 
already-preforked-without-friction escape path. IBM has been burned by 
lack of control over software built with others (those guys in redmond, 
for example) and clearly knows how to protect their interests)

> Thinking out loud... What if someone modifies an org.apache.cocoon class in
> an incompatible way and distributes it incorporated in a product called
> "Comanche Baboon" ???

That's his choice. For sure I won't be *that* responsive to his/her help 
queries after such a move.

The gold rule is "respect and you'll be respected" or "since we helped 
you, the least you can do is not to harm us".

If you go against this on purpose, even after you've been advised of 
better ways of doing it, well, legal threats are the things that should 
worry you the least. :-)


View raw message