httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: apache2-ng7
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:02:47 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 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.

Ahhh... I see where you got confused. My point was that with the licensing
of shtools, it's most likely best that we keep our efforts on what we
already have (the tools in helpers) since that way we can add/adjust
them however we want without worrying about any problems. Using
a 3rd party tool, "just because it's there" when we either already
have it here, or it's blazingly simple to implement on our own, doesn't
make sense. In this case, the 2 scripts that Manoj used are standard,
no-nonsense, loads-of-public-domain-versions-available characters
and so why not just implement them here. And if they are included
with Apache-2.0 (and tested with all that) they will immediately
become a very popular and well-tested suite that the ASF can donate
to the Open Source community. Everyone wins!!
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   [|]
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"

View raw message