httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: License Help!?!
Date Sun, 07 May 2000 13:35:28 GMT
Thank you... at least you confirmed my understanding...

> From: Greg Stein []
> Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 2:34 AM
> On Sat, 6 May 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Ok, I understand the concept of license polution.
> > 
> > But would someone offer me a few of the terms of the GPL and the 
> > GNU GPL/GNU LIBRARY GPL that are offensive to the Apache endeavor?
> I think the *basic* difference between the Apache license and the GPL,
> which seems to matter most to people:
> *) The ASF license places *very* few restrictions on the use and
>    redistribution of the code, changes made to the code, or packages /
>    products made from it.

Ok... see that.
> *) GPL requires that all (re)distribution of the code, 
> changes to it, or
>    packages/products made from it MUST ship with the source 
> code. And the
>    kicker: the source code for any changes OR anything 
> _linked_ in with
>    the product must be distributed, too.

I'm just stuck that it *seems* the 'Library' GPL addressed that
(sort of).  So if your company's *really cool* proprietary stuff
*replaces* the library, it's no issue.  And if the 'Work using'
the library keeps using the library, that's no issue either.

The only issue is propritary changes to 'The GPL Library'.
I don't know that I sympathize on this single point... until
we have effective non-LGPL offerings later, can we roll with
something like libiconv, which is unlikely to be modified without
being replaced?

> The GPL source code redistribution would prevent a number of
> Apache-derived products from being built and sold by companies. For
> example, the IBM HTTP Server would not exist if Apache was GPL'd. As a
> result, all of the excellent work done by IBM for the Apache 
> project would
> not have existed. In a similar vein, Covalent's entire 
> business is built
> around Apache and its success. There are about a half-dozen Covalent
> employees that are contributing their time to the Apache effort; that
> wouldn't be possible with the GPL. Mac OS X Server probably 
> could not have
> used Apache if it was GPL'd.

I'm a sympathizer here too (with the ASF License, not GPL).

> There are patent issues related to the GPL, but I think those 
> problems are
> more "structural" rather than "philosophical." To me, I think the
> use/redistribution thing is the real basis for the ASF.

I'd love to see a case foo example of what impact those have.

> Regarding the LGPL, I'm not quite sure what the issues are 
> for the ASF. It
> seems the patent issue is probably the driving factor, but the derived
> product issue is still there.

My further questions are above.

Thanks again Greg,


View raw message