Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 15428 invoked by uid 6000); 4 Jan 2000 22:56:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 15422 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2000 22:56:27 -0000 Received: from jetpen.com (root@216.235.14.162) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 4 Jan 2000 22:56:27 -0000 Received: from helium.jetpen.com (helium.jetpen.com [216.235.14.166]) by jetpen.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-6) with ESMTP id RAA13799 for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:56:23 -0500 From: rasmus@apache.org Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 17:54:15 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: apache2-ng7 In-Reply-To: <38727920.AE4FFDE1@algroup.co.uk> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: rasmus@imap3.bellglobal.com 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 > > I really, really, really have no idea why we can't have our "own" > > version of shtools. We already do, considering the files in helpers. > > But that was a discussion of long ago and created much heat and > > flame IIRC :/ > > Well, if we're on the subject of stuff we have no idea about, I still > can't understand how shtool can include Apache licensed code and yet be > GPLed. And to add to the confusion, as per RMS Apache cannot ship anything that links against GPL'ed things. Like gdbm, for example. Libraries that are not LGPL'ed are a real hassle. (This stuff should probably be on the licensing list) -Rasmus