httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject Re: FYI: Current hacking: mod_js (JavaScript module)
Date Fri, 29 May 1998 18:06:01 GMT

On Fri, 29 May 1998, Markku Rossi wrote:

> --- clip ------ clip ------ clip ------ clip ------ clip ------ clip ---
> The best way to do this is to state the exception formally and clearly
> in the program source file(s), like this: "This program is free
> software, and you can distribute it under the terms of the GNU General
> Public License (GPL), version 2 or later.  You also have permission to
> link it with FOOBAR and run that combination."  You can see examples
> of exceptions in the file libgcc2.c of GCC, and in Guile.  They are
> not precisely the same kind of exception, but they show the idea.
> --- clip ------ clip ------ clip ------ clip ------ clip ------ clip ---

Unfortunately, this doesn't work.  If FOOBAR was changed to say Apache,
then it would not apply to any derivatives such as C2's, Covalent's, or
RedHat's products.  Those products are prohibited from being called Apache
by the Apache LICENSE.  If FOOBAR is changed to "Apache and derivatives",
then you've destroyed the GPL because anyone can make a deritvative of
apache and use your product.

> Ok, the CEO of NGS just walked in and poked what I am writing here.
> He said: "So, we released the code under the GPL.  So what?  We can
> easily make an exception, for example, for the Apache group, so that
> they can use JS if they want to."

Those products aren't created by the Apache group. 

> So, please, trust me.  If our JS is suitable for your needs and you
> want to use it in the Apache project, the licensing terms *will not*
> be problem.

Why not just put it under LGPL and avoid all these hassles?  The GPL is
infectuous and incompatible with pretty much every other license out
there.  The LGPL maintains the freedom of your bit of code, but doesn't
infect things that folks link it with.

> My personal opinion is, that it is not so important to be fully
> compatible with Netscape - as long as you are not implementing a WWW
> browser.  On the server side, or in other applications, it is
> acceptable to say that "We have JavaScript, but please, do insert the
> semicolons, and do not use these features: ..."

You could even provide a translator between the dialects, similar to a2p,
f2p, and s2p.


View raw message