incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pedro Giffuni <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [code] main/dmake
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:16:02 GMT


--- On Mon, 11/7/11, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
...
> >>
> >> Remember, there are no pure Apache 2,0 licensed
> operating
> >> systems.
> >
> > Who said that??
> >
> > http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang
> >
> 
> I intentionally did not say, "Apache-compatible". 

Feel free to add an Apache License on it and start an
"Apache BSD" podling :).

>  I think my point
> is clear enough.  If we want to interact with
> platforms then we need
> to touch platform-specific API's, and these tend to be
> under either
> proprietary licenses that permit redistribution  (MS
> Windows SDK) or
> under copyleft licenses (Linux).
>

Feel free to touch any platform-specific API's in dmake.
 
> Since the Apache HTTP server is rumored to be able to open
> a network socket, this suggests that there is some way
> for Apache products to call into OS-level services and
> still comply with Apache licensing guidelines.
> 
Nop one is saying you have to remove libcurl. Really you
can interact however you want with GPL'd software including
gnumake, gcc, or dmake, you just don't include it in to SVN.

Is this discussion really going anywhere?

> 
> But we were also told (by Sam, I think) that moving code
> to Apache-Extras or other places externally is not a
> valid way to reduce license issues in the code.
>  In other words, moving a mandatory
> dependency outside of SVN doesn't really change the
> situation.

You are taking things way out of context: we cannot make a
script that downloads the GPL'd stuff that we cannot keep
in SVN, but we can use build-dependencies (binutils, gcc,
gmake).

It's all pretty consistent, really.

Pedro.

Mime
View raw message