www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: LGPL software behind an isolation layer
Date Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:59:19 GMT
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:44 PM, William A. Rowe,
> Jr.<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> I don't think there is breach of GPL going on here, but I agree that
>>> it is undeniably not true then, that "no GPL on SVN infrastructure"
>>> policy is in effect.... *sigh*
>> No, because it is not GPL, it is FSF code under variant terms.
> # This file is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> # it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> # the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
> # (at your option) any later version.
> Quite frankly, how can you not read that "This is a file under GPL"...

Because you didn't read the last paragraph, you stopped at the first
paragraph.  Yes; anyone is free to take this file from the distribution
under the terms of the GPL.  But that is not the licensing applied to
this file;

# As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you
# distribute this file as part of a program that contains a
# configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under
# the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program.

We do (distribute this file as part of a program, httpd, that contains a
configuration script, ./configure, generated by Autoconf), and we do
include this file under the same distribution terms, Apache License,
as we use for the rest of that program.

> You are right (AFAICT) that the file in question isn't distributed in
> the release (my investigation was brief at best), BUT I have heard
> over the years many, many times that no GPL'd files go into SVN. That
> is all I am objecting to, the statement of ultimatum that isn't really
> true at the heart of ASF.

It is distributed in the source code release.  It is never compiled into
any binary form, it is never packaged into a 'binary distribution'.
But it is certainly distributed.

We can discuss the GPL SVN claim, of course, and examine where similar
circumstances lead to a legitimate check-in of copyleft or dual licensed
code.  Or we can examine if these circumstances aren't sufficient to
check this file into svn.  But unless we want to have that discussion
with both relevant facts (that this has a GPL license, *and* that it has
an Apache License by virtue of it's exception clause) I'd respectfully
suggest that the thread is dead.

> I am tired and won't bother with the rest of the sling shots in this
> thread. It is confusing, and not what I need right now.

Ditto; and this was all asked and answered.

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

View raw message