httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From tvaug...@aventail.com
Subject Re: apache 1.3.6 cygwin port integration
Date Mon, 17 May 1999 16:25:10 GMT
Bill Stoddard <stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com> writes:

> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 15 May 1999, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> > 
> > > According to Stipe Tolj:
> > >
> > > >  we -- the Cygwin Porting Project -- would like to add our Apache 1.3.6
> > > >  port to the Cygwin b20.x environment to the official Apache
> > > >  distribution.
> > >
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your port uses the cygwin library
> > > (rsp. is linked against this library) it _must_ be distributed under
> > > the GPL. This is a problem, because Apache has its own license which
> > > is not 'compatible' with GPL. In other words, we cannot incorporate a
> > > patch/port which is covered by the GPL...
> > 
> > I posted to -core about this a few months back -- earlier descriptions of
> > the licensing were unclear... I think they've cleaned things up somewhat
> > -- see <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html>.  Essentially
> > we'd be able to distribute the source, but not binaries.
> 
> Is this source GPL'ed?  I'd be wary of putting GPL'ed source into the
> Apache standard distribution (or into the same CVS repository for that
> matter). It opens the whole intellectual property can-o-worms that I
> just as soon avoid if possible.

Which source? The cygwin libaries are GPL'd. I do not know under what
license this patch is. Public domain I assume. 

<IANAL>
This cygwin port gives someone the *option* to build Apache on Win32 using
something other than MSVC. Only when someone decides to distribute Win32
binaries, the source code *must be* made available if the binaries require
the cygwin libraries, and the source code *does not have to be* made
available if the binaries require the MSVC libraries.
</IANAL>

-Tom

-- 
Tom Vaughan <tvaughan at aventail dot com>

Mime
View raw message