httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: dist size (was Re: cvs commit: apachen/htdocs/manual LICENSE)
Date Sun, 19 Oct 1997 23:49:39 GMT
On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Marc Slemko wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 19 Oct 1997, Randy Terbush wrote:
> > 
> > > No. The license needs to appear in the source files to remove all 
> > > doubt. There are enough questions about the license as it is.
> > 
> > That's because the license doesn't make sense.
> > 
> 
> As far as I know, no lawyer that we have directed to look
> at the LICENSE has gone through it scratching their heads and
> muttering.

That's because they are lawyers.

> 
> I'm not a lawyer, and don't even play one on TV, but in any case
> let's step through it...
> 
> /* ====================================================================
>  * Copyright (c) 1995-1997 The Apache Group.  All rights reserved.
>  *
>  * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>  * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>  * are met:
> 
> People are allowed to redistribute Apache (either source and/or
> code) as long as the follow the below conditions. This applies even
> if they modify the source. Why? To prevent people from recompiling
> Apache and changing SERVER_BASEVERSION to "Jim's Super Web Server 1.0"
> and snubbing Apache.
> 
>  *
>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 
> 
> If someone redistributes the code, for example on a CD-ROM, the LICENSE
> must be included as well. AFAIK this can be either in the CD-ROM or
> on hardcopy documentation provided with the CD-ROM. It also implies
> that LICENSE may not be deleted in the distribution unless it's replaced
> by a written copy.

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 am sure there are legal ways around it, but that doesn't mean it makes
sense.


Mime
View raw message