Re: [Classpathx-discuss] Re: javax.management

[Fernando Nasser]

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.

Regards,
Fernando