Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:29:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@collab.net>
To: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@mediaone.net>
cc: <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Mixing Apache and Mozilla
In-Reply-To: <20010223025224.D9395@lyra.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.31.0102230921370.67170-100000@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> Much of this will go away in the next couple weeks, as we toss the old Expat
> and upgrade to the latest (which is under an MIT/X license which is a
> *total* subset of Apache's license and is, therefore, totally cool).

That's good to know, and matches my expectation: the more "utility-like"
or baseline a particular library or application is, the simpler its
license really should be, to encourage wider-spread adoption.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Jon Smirl wrote:
> I was hoping to avoid the creation of a new portable run-time, the APR being
> split out of Apache in the 2.0 project. This could be done by adding
> Apache's special requirements to the existing NSPR. It would also free
> Apache developers to work on other parts of Apache. There are a lot more
> programmers working on Mozilla (most at Netscape) than Apache.

I seem to recall that *one* of the reasons that it was argued to do our
own runtime was that NSPR had a lot of functionality that simply wasn't
needed by server-side software.  I don't have any specifics to add to
this, but so long as we're dealing at the 10K foot level, let it be said
that sometimes specialization is a good thing.

> The other goal is the introducton of XPCOM into Apache.

This doesn't require NSPR, does it?

	Brian