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: [VOTE] 0.9.9 Release
Date Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:10:30 GMT
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:48:50PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
>>-1 for apr-util-0.9.9 - for licensing issues alone.  Just in case the
>>scope of this issue isn't clear, I obtained an svn binary for my
>>Solaris 10 box, for example.  It is linked to libgdbm, and through
>>deliberate fault of the .pkg'er who  created it, it does not bear a
>>valid LICENSE, NOTICE, or COPYRIGHT.  We have created this scenario
>>for well meaning users, distributors and bundlers, and we must close
>>it.
> 
> We're voting on a source release here, and it's ASL licensed. What's the
> licensing problem in releasing the ASL-licensed source?

The source release will create a stealth GPL package, by default.

> In general, for any library we link to, someone could come along and
> create a GPL equivalent, it's not really our problem. It's the
> distributors problem, and when we create binaries - it's our
> responsibility to comply with any licensed involved - but that's outside
> this current vote/process.

Of course; that is why options like --with-somepackage are good.  And if you
are working in a toxic-license environment (say, your machine's c compiler
has a GPL clib(!)) then you are already aware every package you builds is GPL.

But this was a stealth behavior as I've said several times before; *WE* caused
this action, the user did not choose this action.  And that is why our package
is the problem, not the user.



Mime
View raw message