Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 5004 invoked by uid 6000); 19 Oct 1997 23:50:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 4997 invoked from network); 19 Oct 1997 23:50:09 -0000 Received: from valis.worldgate.com (marcs@198.161.84.2) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 1997 23:50:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (marcs@localhost) by valis.worldgate.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id RAA20105 for ; Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:49:39 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 1997 17:49:39 -0600 (MDT) From: Marc Slemko To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: dist size (was Re: cvs commit: apachen/htdocs/manual LICENSE) In-Reply-To: <199710192339.TAA10669@devsys.jaguNET.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org 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.