httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dave Neuer" <>
Subject Re: apache2-ng7
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2000 22:40:32 GMT
I'm not an active developer, so feel free to flame or ban me, but:

The Apache Group seems to have just as much of a bug up its ass about
licenses & attribution as RMS, if not more.  Look; lots of us *prefer* one
license to another (I personally happen to prefer GPL).  However, I can't
understand why the Apache Group or the ASF should care one whit about the
particulars of the license for what is essentially a peripheral tool, so
long as it allows modifications to and redistribution of source.

I honestly can't see imagine any entity rejecting Apache or APR for any use
(including basing a commercial product on it) because of being forced to
freely redistribute their modifications to shtool. Unless the Apache Group
planning on developing some powerful, radical new software with shtool at
the absolute core, any objection to the license of libtool or shtool (or any
other *tool, which is not part of the "core" Apache software) seems (to an
outside observer) merely petty and counter-productive.

Dave Neuer
Software Engineer
Futuristics Labs, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralf S. Engelschall <>
To: <>
Date: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: apache2-ng7

>In article <> you wrote:
>> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>>> If the two packages would allow this, the ASF could too easily
>>> create an ASF libtool and ASF shtool out of them, licensed under the
>>> Apache license...
>> Sounds like a good reason to use and create our own helpers (instead
>> of shtools) and only use 3rd party when we really _need_ to (like
>> the autoconf stuff) which is what we've done before anyway. Great!!
>Sorry, Jim, my flair for English seems to be not sufficient to actually
>decide whether you say this serious or ironic, but if you say it ironic
>keep in mind that my above statement wasn't against ASF - it was against
>any license with less restrictions, be it the Apache license or just
>some other BSD-style license. So don't feel attacked, please. OTOH if
>you say the above serious, I think such a non-technical decision would
>be more than silly, because as I tried to explain: there has to be
>no non-technical reason to not use shtool (or any other packages of
>the Autoconf area), because at least for shtool you can get a special
>license condition which can make you more happy if you're still not
>happy enough through the existing exclusion clause.
>                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message