incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Niall Pemberton" <niall.pember...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: moving a failed incubation project
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:08:13 GMT
On Jan 23, 2008 11:26 AM, Simon Kitching <sk@ops.co.at> wrote:
> Niall Pemberton schrieb:
> > On Jan 23, 2008 7:23 AM, Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Niall
> >>
> >> Asking someone politely to rename the package is hardly throwing our
> >> weight around.
> >>
> >
> > Well you were talking about "need to change the package name" and
> > "rigorous protection" rather than some kind of "hey we'd prefer
> > it...".
> >
> > If people are so keen on *protecting* apache in this way then rather
> > than starting with a failed incubator project, then how about this
> > stuff:
> >
> > https://glassfish.dev.java.net/source/browse/glassfish/appserv-webtier/src/java/org/apache/
> >
>
> Again, that is a bit different from the original TCIK issue. It
> *appears* that here they are not doing this in order to *distribute* a
> forked copy of tomcat, but instead to support tomcat as an alternative
> internal servlet-engine implementation within their own j2ee server. In
> other words, I would think that:
> (a) you could not normally download this code except by downloading the
> entire glassfish server, and
> (b) they are not actively developing this code to add new features
> (forking) but simply adding a few patches to make it integrate better
> with Glassfish.
>
> The alternate implementations of commons-logging have also been
> mentioned in this thread. This is not the same IMO. Commons-logging is
> both an API and an implementation. People should be able to provide
> alternate implementations of an API, and that is what slf4j are doing
> for example; they are not providing a "patched" or "forked"
> commons-logging, but instead a complete alternative implementation, and
> are distributing just the minimum amount of code to provide the same api
> to users.
>
> So:
> * distributing a few classes in order to implement an apache API : ok
> * distributing a copy of apache code for the convenience of users of a
> larger package, perhaps with a few minor tweaks for better integration: ok
> * publishing code to the world which bears no resemblance to code
> approved by the ASF: not ok

My advice to anyone - read the license yourself, take advice if you
feel you need it and ignore all the stuff being spouted here:

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution

Niall

> All this just just my opinion of course..
>
> Regards,
> Simon

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message