httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@engelschall.com>
Subject Re: apache2-ng7
Date Sat, 08 Jan 2000 14:58:16 GMT

In article <20000106164102.A18604@io.com> you wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 07:34:19PM +0100, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> 2. Using GNU shtool in Apache more or less follows the same path as
>>    using GNU libtool, GNU autoconf and GNU automake. For instance,
>>    fact is that all these four tools are covered by the GPL. Full
>>    stop. Nevertheless they can be _USED_ and _INCLUDED_ inside non-GPL
>>    packages, because all four ship with particular GPL exception
>>    clauses. 
> 
> My main concern was that libtool's exception and yours are phrased
> differently. libtool states that there is an explicit exemption when
> the script is bundled with another package. shtool just has an
> ancillary phrase stating the opinion that the GPL is not a problem in
> this case. Let's just say that I don't have any evidence that RMS, or
> other contributors to shtool agree with you. :)

Ok, so what exact exception clause do you suggest? I ask, because
even libtool's exception clause could be interpreted IMHO as "you
can _include_ it and _redistribute_ it under Apache license, but
_modifications_ are still GPL".

> And, if you have had any other contributors to shtool, I'm afraid that
> you would no longer have the legal authority to relicense shtool if we
> happened to be so inclined to use it.

Sure, re-licensing is not allowed for anyone. But rewording the
exception clause to make it more explicit it no problem IMHO.

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message