httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <ako...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject Re: FYI: Current hacking: mod_js (JavaScript module)
Date Fri, 29 May 1998 06:41:09 GMT
On Fri, 29 May 1998, Tim Hudson wrote:

>     There is a *major* problem with the NGS interpreter - it is under the GPL
> and as such is incompatible with other licenses. 
>     For those who haven't caught up with things - read the GPL - it is not 
> possible to have a GPLd apache module. 

I'm confused.

The GPL (version 2) says, in section 0: "Activities other than copying,
distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are
outside its scope." 

i.e., the license only takes affect if I want to distribute code or
binaries. Now, if I have a GPLed Apache module, I see no problem
*distributing* that module, assuming Apache is not included, right? If I
then compile (or link) that module into Apache, I'm not doing any
"copying, distribution and modification", so that should be all right.
Now, of course, I can't redistribute this Apache+GPLed module, but I can
surely run it.

In fact, section 2 says "mere aggregation of another work not based on the
Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume
of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License." So I should be able to distribute Apache and
the GPLed module together, as long as they are seperate (seperate source
files or seperate binaries).

So, in short, I don't see the problem with a GPLed Apache module. Can
someone explain it to me, with citations from the GPL?

-- Alexei Kosut <> <>
   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <> *

View raw message