apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "C. Bergström" <codest...@osunix.org>
Subject Re: apr-util - "missing" file is GPL licensed
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:34:57 GMT
William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/4/2010 5:58 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>   
>> On 4 Feb 2010, at 21:03, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> ]] Nick Kew 
>>>
>>> | I don't know if it comes under any of the FSF's exceptions for the
>>> | core toolchain (as in, compiling with gcc and linking glibc doesn't
>>> | bring you under GPL).
>>>
>>> It's a shell script.  It's hardly linked into expat or apr-util and
>>> there's no way it can make the generated binaries fall under the GPL.
>>>       
>> Yes, I know it's a shell script.
>>
>> The point is, we *are* distributing it!
>>     
>
> We aren't disagreeing; that is the point of the RAT tool, to catch things
> like this which we weren't paying attention to, once they had been checked
> out of subversion *and then* packaged for release.  It would be great for
> that tool to be more widely used by existing projects, not simply the
> incubating ones :)
>
> And yes, it makes a great argument against autocrap at the ASF;
lol.. +1

The problem I see with this though is that GNU Make tends to be an easy 
defacto standard to depend on when creating a portable replacement for 
auto*.  Which imho really more or less defeats the purpose of caring at 
all.  (I'm not saying don't care, but to keep it in perspective..)

./C


Mime
View raw message