www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>
Subject Re: build systems vs. license issues [Re: Hashing it out ...]
Date Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:13:42 GMT
Santiago Gala wrote:
> Torsten Curdt wrote:
> (...)
> 
>> ..the only drawback is that the distributions are not self-contained 
>> and not compile-able out-of-the-box.
> 
> Be sure to blame the approprite culprit, so that user frustratin does 
> not stand on us. Like "company XXX forbids us to bundle a essential 
> component because of licensing issues. Please go to <url>, download it 
> and put it here".

+1

> OTOH, one of the main problems is Sun Binary License. This license 
> *allows* redistribution with our products, just it does not allow 
> individual download. So the problem is mainly for *new* developers, 
> having more errors and steeper learning curve.

+1

> A nice workaround for Sun's jars would be to have a software release 
> called "external_dependency_solver", where several or those jars could 
> be bundled, together with version checking and some documentation. This 
> would be aimed to developers, as part of the "Apache Java toolkit"
> 
> Hei, experts, would this make a way out of this? Is it twisting things 
> too much?

This is twisting things too much.  I am aware of other dicussions 
outside the scope of Apache. In those discussions on other topics, the 
crucial question is one of "value add".

> On the other side, negotiating exemptions or rewording of licenses is 
> good, but it is a heavy and difficult path.
> 
> It's sad, but we want to play by the rules until we manage to change 
> them ;-)

+1

> Regards,
>      Santiago

- Sam Ruby


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


Mime
View raw message