Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: 76.96.59.243 is neither permitted
 nor denied by domain of jim@jagunet.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.0 \(1486\))
Subject: Re: New chair and/or attic
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
In-Reply-To: <F76F7FB7-EF82-4B17-91F8-50C248906E3E@jaguNET.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 15:37:58 -0400
Cc: Liviu Nicoara <nikkoara@hates.ms>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1214EA39-7871-42CC-9B59-10CA4BA81D45@jaguNET.com>
References: <C79D913B-F9F0-4492-BAAE-99D484816C87@jaguNET.com>
 <503E4D8C.9050304@hates.ms>
 <405AE5DF-EB6E-4ABF-A3E0-C584246AF31A@jaguNET.com>
 <503F44F1.40805@pathscale.com> <503F5CA3.2070404@hates.ms>
 <503F62FA.7060905@pathscale.com>
 <CAMeYnzH06HRAN9Ercf_Nj4khqZz6mwr0DC54Kfe1sE-Uf2rrGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <503FDF13.902@pathscale.com> <B36338B4-794F-45CA-B1FE-F4B592DC4913@hates.ms>
 <503FFE87.2040200@pathscale.com>
 <D59BAB53-F949-436D-AF86-79C91C6AF36E@jaguNET.com>
 <5040B189.8050905@pathscale.com>
 <363B69D3-5722-4FB9-A17F-6D296CB25C11@jaguNET.com>
 <50410080.5010508@pathscale.com>
 <750FDF6E-ABB6-4D28-BBC1-DB6E31A6D7D2@jimjag.com>
 <5041055F.4090305@pathscale.com>
 <B6E2A200-0963-456F-A9BC-A80741FA9FAA@jaguNET.com>
 <50410D9B.9060609@pathscale.com>
 <F76F7FB7-EF82-4B17-91F8-50C248906E3E@jaguNET.com>
To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org


On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com> wrote:

>=20
> On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:16 PM, C. Bergstr=F6m <cbergstrom@pathscale.com> =
wrote:
>=20
>> On 09/ 1/12 02:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:41 PM, "C. =
Bergstr=F6m"<cbergstrom@pathscale.com>  wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> On 09/ 1/12 01:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>>>> Your suggestion is that, somehow, one cannot push stdcxx as part
>>>>> of the FreeBSD ports collection. And that is because it is =
licensed
>>>>> under ALv2.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> My response is that that suggestion is total hogwash.
>>>> That's not an authoritative response - To help resolve this maybe =
we could
>>>>=20
>>>> 1) Have Apache lawyers say the same thing via a letter to FBSD =
foundation
>>>> or
>>>> 2) Please have this link updated and provide a reference to where =
FSF has stated their revised compatibility views about APLv2 + GPLv2
>>>> http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
>>>>=20
>>> Ummm... system library
>>>=20
>>> """
>>> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If =
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and =
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in =
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those =
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you =
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on =
the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this =
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire =
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
>> armchair lawyer response not acceptable - Unless you're an Apache =
lawyer?
>>=20
>=20
> It's quoting the GPLv2.
>=20
> I will not mention the irony of your "opposition" being the
> result of armchair lawyering...

Besides, how this is different from say, OpenSSL, is beyond me
as well. (for those curious, look at =
http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2)=