httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <>
Subject RE: apache 1.3.6 cygwin port integration
Date Sun, 16 May 1999 23:12:25 GMT
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 <>.  Essentially
we'd be able to distribute the source, but not binaries.

Based on that, and the comment from Gilmore that by only allowing a MSVC
version of Apache we're essentially spoonfeeding folks to microsoft
(rather than supporting diverse compilation environments on win32, like we
do on all unix variants), I suggested we accept a cygwin32 port of apache.

> But if you distribute binaries of your port under the name 'Apache'
> you either violate the GPL license or the Apache license.

Yes and no, by doing that he creates a "fork" in the source -- and after
the fork, both the apache and GPL license apply to his version (the GPL
binds "tighter", but can't override the apache-advertising clause, for
example).  It's pretty meaningless in practice -- because people doing
work on the "fork"  might as well be doing work on the original source. 
Of course they might always disagree with the apache license and continue
to work on the GPL'd version... which is a possibility in any event.

At any rate, I haven't looked at this port... but if it's clean we should
accept it.


View raw message