[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re:

From: Fernando Nasser
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re:
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 05:12:37 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020

Nic Ferrier wrote:
If MX4J was dual licenced (maybe with the LGPL) I would help fix it.

Let me see if I understood what you are saying. You say you don't want to contribute to an Open Source project if it is under the APL, is that right?

I would be interested in knowing what are your reasons for that.

Several of us have been lately trying to get the scatered open source developers working on separate and ailing projects to join forces, share code etc. We are encountering resistency from some people to incorporate LGPL code in their APL/BSD code base (haven't yet encountered the opposite -- it seems fine to add APL/BSD code to LGPL projects). Although I myself claimed in a meeting that I and some other O.S. developers had a preference to contribute under the GPL, I did not think it would go as far as not be willing to contribute at all.

But perhaps I misunderstood you completely, or this is just related to an assumption that we could not use MX4J because of license incompatibilities.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]