Mailing-List: contact community-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: community@apache.org
Message-ID: <3E43E7BB.1010507@hisitech.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:07:07 +0100
From: Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: community@apache.org
Subject: Re: build systems vs. license issues [Re: Hashing it out ...]
References: <20030206041728.57583.qmail@web12407.mail.yahoo.com>
 <3E439D16.7010108@apache.org> <3E43A563.8070901@dff.st>
 <3E43B7FF.9070205@apache.org> <3E43C32F.3010204@dff.st>
 <2147483647.1044608233@[10.0.1.32]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Friday, February 7, 2003 3:31 PM +0100 Torsten Curdt 
> <tcurdt@dff.st> wrote:
> 
>> Is it really like that? I mean: how does it work for the PHP guys
>> with all the modules and libraries then?
> 
> 
> PHP uses C, so the LGPL rules are clear.
> 
> It sorta sucks, but we *can* link against LGPL/GPL code in httpd.  I 
> believe we don't allow binaries to be distributed that link against such 
> libraries though.  The case I explicitly remember having a conversation 
> at dev@apr was over the use of Electric Fence which is GPL.  Someone 
> (Greg?) finally said it was okay.
> 
> I believe the FSF has an ulterior motive for keeping the Java situation 
> quite murky.  -- justin


s/java/C#/g applies equally, isn't it? (not in keeping it murky, but in 
the issues  of LGPL license)

> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org