Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: License Help!?! 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 07 May 2000 08:35:28 CDT."
             <000001bfb829$30f70c10$345985d0@corecomm.net>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 00:10:54 -0700
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@kiwi.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Message-ID: <200005080010.aa27538@gremlin-relay.ics.uci.edu>

>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.

It does not address the fundamental issue that the distributors
of the software must be able to maintain that software over time.
This applies to both the ASF and the various commercial organizations
that provide support and/or custom software based on ASF code.

We cannot maintain LGPL code without causing everything distributed
with that code to become LGPL or GPL.  Likewise, LGPL allows any
user to declare the code to be GPL, make modifications, and then
submit those modifications back into our tree as GPL.  Under those
circumstances, it is preferable to develop our own library rather
than distribute a linkable library that is LGPL.

We can still use LGPL (and GPL) code libraries -- we just cannot
distribute it within the same package as Apache code.  We can
distribute non-combinable source code (e.g., scripts) as LGPL,
but again it is rarely worth the bother.

It is much easier to replicate software that is maintainable as Apache
code than it is to work out the licensing issues with some person
who is likely to abandon their code as soon as they find a more
interesting project.  Apache is more than just a code base -- it is
a philosophy for collaborative development of software such that
the product is maintainable by the entire community that uses it,
for as long as any community cares to do so.

....Roy