Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 84966 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2000 20:34:02 -0000 Received: from fortress.aeat-esw.com (192.139.200.16) by locus.apache.org with SMTP; 7 Mar 2000 20:34:02 -0000 Received: from aurora by fortress.aeat-esw.com via smtpd (for locus.apache.org [63.211.145.10]) with SMTP; 7 Mar 2000 20:34:22 UT Received: by AURORA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:34:00 -0700 Message-ID: <00E567D938B9D311ACEC00A0C9B468730C7616@THOR> From: "Arnold, Curt" To: "'general@xml.apache.org'" Subject: RE: XSLT library: the next step Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 13:28:54 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Sorry, I'm a little over my head here. When I said SourceForge, I was thinking about the open-source hosting service they provide, not the package they provide to enable hosting open-source projects. The problem I anticipated if the library project was hosted on SourceForge's service was that companies would be reluctant to donate stuff to "Somebody's XSLT library" when they may be willing to donate stuff to the Apache Software Foundation. If Apache holds the copyrights and just happens to use SourceForge's service or software, that would be fine with me, but then why didn't you take that approach with Xerces, Xalan et al?