www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com>
Subject Historical question about Apache License 1.0
Date Tue, 02 Jul 2013 16:33:43 GMT
Hi everyone, I have been asked a question that requires a historian of
Apache lore. Can one of you please respond and CC the people I've copied on
this email? /Larry

 

**********************

 

Around 1995 a license seems to have been introduced by the Apache Group,
containing five clauses. An example of it can be found here:

 

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/precise/+source/libapache2-mod-rpaf/+copyright

 

The Apache 1.0 license however contains 6 clauses:

 

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.0

 

The "5 clause 1.0" license seemed to have been used quite a bit by Apache as
well, for example in httpd 1.2.6 from 1998: 

http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/beta/apache_1.2.6.tar.gz

 

Perhaps you can shed a light on it. Why was an extra clause added to the
text of 1.0? How should we treat the "5 clause 1.0" license? Does it have a
different number? Can you ask within Apache?

 

I guess equally important, what do we call each of the two variants we
detect?

 

and in the old version, what do we do about that spelling mistake (it's) in:

 

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE APACHE GROUP OR IT'S CONTRIBUTORS

 

*********************

 

LR's personal note:  I have long since given up trying to correct "it's" and
"its" in Apache writing. But its sure a problem when the text is being
referenced by linguists who insist on it's precision. :-)  

 


Mime
View raw message