[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re:

From: Nic Ferrier
Subject: Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re:
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:37:38 +0000

Fernando Nasser <address@hidden> writes:

> 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?

Yes. I would be happy to help if MX4J was dual licenced.

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

In general I don't work on open source projects. I work on free
software ones. I work for GNU. I try, whenever possible, to benefit
the GNU project. APL code cannot be used with GPL code. LGPL code can
(even if it is also licenced under the APL).

I don't have much time to spend on free software, I have 3 small
children and a large dog who take up a lot of my time, so when I
choose to help I do so very selectively.

> 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.

It does in my case. I am very selective about who I help.

I have often found it to be the case where ASF programmers will not
contibute to GPL or LGPL projects.

I don't see why my reaction is suprising.

Nic Ferrier

reply via email to

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