apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: svn commit: r374743 - /apr/apr/branches/1.2.x/STATUS
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2006 00:37:20 GMT
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 2/3/06, wrowe@apache.org <wrowe@apache.org> wrote:
>>--- apr/apr/branches/1.2.x/STATUS (original)
>>+++ apr/apr/branches/1.2.x/STATUS Fri Feb  3 13:01:05 2006
>>@@ -15,6 +15,10 @@
>>+  * MUST invert default selection of GPL, Sleepcat, BDB licensed plug
>>+    in detection to default to off, following clarification of the
>>+    ASF license compatibility
> Umm, why is this being listed as a showstopper?  The policy in
> question is not yet public, is not yet final, and is not yet in place.
>  Even if it was in place, it has a built in timeline for projects to
> get up to speed with it.  There's no reason, as far as I can tell, for
> us to be holding back any release at this point.

GPL was an issue when this code was first introduced.  Only now those
of us vocal against auto-detection have a soon-to-be policy to point at.

Automerging into GPL code infects APR, you don't need policy to tell you
that.  Ergo, anytime someone -wants- to ./configure --with-gdbm, they are
creating a GPL APR.  No way legally to avoid that polution.

> This should at least have been brought up on the dev list first before
> throwing it into STATUS as if it had been decided on, IMO.

It's not a question of a decision; it's a simple legal truth.  Compiling
against gdbm creates GPL APR, which in turn creates a GPL httpd.

There is no problem with a user -explicitly- choosing a GPL version of our
package.  But there is a problem when it's silently propogated without any
proper LICENSE or NOTICE files.

The fix is simple, --without-gdbm goes away (or becomes a noop).  --with-gdbm
becomes the current behavior (find the thing somewhere).  --with-gdbm=/foo
remains as today, just point to it.

Then there is no way they can end up with stealth terms on APR because the
builder chose license.  But at least we are not embedding the GPL into our
library without the user's knowledge.

Any additional questions?


View raw message