Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-bugs-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 80421 invoked from network); 1 Jul 2005 09:24:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 1 Jul 2005 09:24:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 54923 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2005 09:24:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-bugs-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 54800 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2005 09:24:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact bugs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: Reply-To: "Apache HTTPD Bugs Notification List" List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list bugs@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 54757 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2005 09:24:11 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [192.87.106.226] (HELO ajax.apache.org) (192.87.106.226) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jul 2005 02:24:10 -0700 Received: by ajax.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 99) id 02D5613; Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:24:07 +0200 (CEST) From: bugzilla@apache.org To: bugs@httpd.apache.org Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 35555] - Can't find DBM on Debian Sarge X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Message-Id: <20050701092407.02D5613@ajax.apache.org> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 11:24:07 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG� RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND� INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35555 ------- Additional Comments From nicklas.bondesson@mindping.com 2005-07-01 11:24 ------- This is the answer I got from Adam Conrad on the debian- apache@lists.debian.org list. "Debian's general take on patching upstream packages is to license it under "the same license as upstream, whatever that may be", specifically to make it easier to get patches accepted upstream, so we can stop maintaining them. While I'm not sure who was responsible for this specific patch, as a Debian Apache maintainer, and I can be fairly sure that no one intended to license it incompatibly (as was suggested in the bug, where someone surmised that it was probably GPL... Not sure where they'd get that idea from). All of THAT aside, so little code is changed, and it's mostle just shuffling header includes, I'd question if the patch was even copyrightable in the first place. We've submitted many patches upstream in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. If this one slipped through the cracks, it's only because it was so small and insignificant, not because of the license. By all means, take it, give it a new home in ASF SVN, let us stop carrying it around in our package. ... Adam" So it shouldn't be any problems. Nicklas -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: bugs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: bugs-help@httpd.apache.org