Re: Plans for next release?

On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 23:17, Michael C. Neel wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 03:01, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> > May I suggest the following:
> >       * If you consider the BSD license, the X11 (aka. MIT) license is
> >         simpler, equivalent, and less prone to problems. In any case,
> >         the "modified BSD license" (without the advertising clause) is
> >         certainly more welcome than the old one.
> 
> We are going with the BSD, the newer version.  The no endorsement clause
> is important to the powers that be, which is understandable.  Plus, this
> is the license of Albatross, which must be maintained as well, and
> solves any possible license conflict issues.
---snip---
> We are fedora people here, so we can't cope with anything debian.  J/K
> =p.  It might be a week before we get the project going (legal can be
> slow to read two paragraphs, lol), but we've used SF in the past so
> we'll probably be lazy and just use it now.

These are very pleasing developments - at the very least it means I can
now tell anyone who asks that Albatross is a mature package actively
being supported and developed by more than one company, and point them
to the evidence of that fact. It reduces the perceived risk of using an
obscure Web app framework considerably. Not that I personally considered
there to be any significant risk, but you know what corporate IT
managers are like.

-- 

Tim C

PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from keyservers everywhere
or at http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc
Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B  EB37 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0