httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: apache2-ng7
Date Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:21:07 GMT
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Dave Neuer wrote:
> The Apache Group seems to have just as much of a bug up its ass about
> licenses & attribution as RMS, if not more.

Actually, I find it is the latter. The Apache license is very relaxed on
purpose: because we don't care.

The issue here is that if some GPL code becomes part of the distribution,
then *have* to care. We want to avoid caring about licensing, so we want
to avoid GPL code.

> 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.

We aren't worried about the *users* of Apache. We're worried about what we
can do with our own code. Including GPL'd code means that we have to take
specific precautions and effort. We're lazy and want to avoid that :-)

> 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.

We are using autoconf, automake, and libtool because we do not have
replacements. We don't plan to create replacements.

shtool is a different matter. We already have the needed functionality in
our helpers/ directory. To switch over to shtool means that we must assume
the burden of the GPL license, with no incremental benefit in
functionality over our existing codebase. So why should we?

In essence: we don't really have a problem with the license itself, but
that the cost of that license has no incremental benefit for us (in
regards to shtool; auto* and libtool do have benefit).


Greg Stein,

View raw message