httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: dist size (was Re: cvs commit: apachen/htdocs/manual LICENSE)
Date Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:56:59 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> But the problem is that if you include the license, then you are
> including a document that says _your_ redistributed code is subject
> to this license.  It is not necessarily true.  For example, you
> may disallow free redistribution of the code.  This leads you to conditions
> of including the license, saying "oh, this isn't the license at all
> and has no legal basis", then having your own.  But that isn't correct
> either because parts of it do have to apply to anything ever derived
> from the code.

I see your point... The LICENSE only applies to that code which
has it's basis/core from Apache. Thus, only those sections which
use Apache code has that basis.

Again, looking at WebTen, which is different because it's binary,
the fact that they use Apache means that, if they were to
release the source, only those sections of Apache code would
be holden to the LICENSE. The stuff that Tenon did, as far as
things like implementing their own OT-aware stack, would not be.

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

View raw message