incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [code] main/dmake
Date Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:04:12 GMT
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> --- 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".   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).

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.

> Except for GNU ld and some minimal options, all replaceable,
> FreeBSD's base is fully Apache-compatible.
>
> But in any case, that is a poor argument in favor of
> keeping something we don't need in SVN. It looks pretty
> consistent: we are not including dmake or gcc or clang
> in the source release, therefore it doesn't make sense
> to keep them in SVN either.
>

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.
Otherwise we'd just move the entire code base to Apache-Extras and
have only a script file with a single "svn co" line in our SVN  ;-)

> Pedro.
>
>

Mime
View raw message