apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@attglobal.net>
Subject Re: gdbm licence issue
Date Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:37:27 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> However, this *might* mean issues for downstream participants who 
> package apr-util; that in and of itself, might cause us to remove GDBM 
> support, but it's not because of any licensing issues.  If we're not 
> comfortable allowing third-parties to create GPLd code out of AL v2.0 
> code, then, yes, that's an issue and the code should be removed.  
> However, that has not yet seemed to be our official position.

Perhaps the default build should disable any features which could make the 
licensing of the generated "product" different than the licensing of the source 
code, and if the user is happy otherwise then they can enable such features?

What I have done thus far where this has been a potential issue is to add

--without-gdbm --without-berkeley-db

to the configure invocation.

View raw message