www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Gomez <hgo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Clarifying some licensing issues for Apache developers
Date Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:59:43 GMT
Brian Behlendorf wrote:

 > It seems worthwhile to state something that probably most people are 
 > of, but a few recent incidents suggest is worth repeating.  Followups are
 > being directed to licensing@apache.org, a list that is private to Apache
 > committers, where legal issues are discussed.  Please subscribe to that
 > list (requires approval) before posting to it.
 > First off, thank you to everyone who has transitioned to the new Apache
 > License 2.0.  It is a board mandate that *all* software distributed 
by the
 > Apache Software Foundation be under this new license.  This has some
 > subtle and not-so-subtle ramifications people should be aware of.
 > *) Only software packages created by the Apache Software Foundation 
may be
 > redistributed from Apache's servers and mirrors.  This means no tarballs
 > or binaries from other authors or organizations.  We realize that 
many ASF
 > projects depend upon other software, and that these dependencies may make
 > it difficult for new users to bootstrap quickly.  There are solutions to
 > that problem outside of the ASF: ibiblio, sourceforge, CPAN, etc.  The
 > board might grant exceptions to this rule - bring it to us if you'd like
 > us to consider it.

Should I understand that we could no more include third-party jars in
ASF products, for example mx4j jars in Tomcat ?

If it's the case this decision will put many, many users in big trouble
since they couldn't use anymore ready-to-run package (zip or tarball
containing everything needed for run).

As one of the founder of the JPackage Projet, www.jpackage.org, which
try to maintain a repository of java applications and libs, let me say
that the task is not so easy, and for now works only on RPM based boxes,
mostly Linux.

What should do non-RPM users ?

I could understand the board concern about incompatible license, but
when developpers select third-party software to make ASF products,
they take care of it isn't it ?

So I strongly suggest board to reconsider this point or we may see in
a near future ASF products distribution, containing both ASF and
required third party software, outside Apache servers and it will
not help users to find their way.

Am I exact in thinking that the original ASF goal is to provide real
products for real users, and that we should take care of users as much
as we take care of performance, stability ?


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

View raw message