Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 26809 invoked by uid 6000); 5 Jan 2000 23:17:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 26781 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2000 23:17:39 -0000 Received: from nebula.lyra.org (gstein@216.98.236.100) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 5 Jan 2000 23:17:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (gstein@localhost) by nebula.lyra.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA11364 for ; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:21:07 -0800 Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:21:07 -0800 (PST) From: Greg Stein To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: apache2-ng7 In-Reply-To: <014701bf57cd$dfd602c0$6401a8c0@gyaos> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Status: O 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). Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/