At 5/22/2006 11:15 AM, Gareth Reakes wrote:
You in correct in thinking that Apache could offer a different license,
but we have our license for lots of reasons. My understanding is that we
would not offer a GPL license. That is not to say that we don't strive to
make the licenses compatible. I hope that the licenses are compatible in
the future so that GPL software guys can use Apache without worrying.
For what it's worth, it's my understanding Apache licenses (through rev
2.0) are not compatible with the GNU GPL, as per:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
Hence Xerces is a problem with our GPL project. As mentioned previously,
we would prefer to not make a Xerces-based exception to our GPL offering.
If the above is true, then GPL projects can not legally embed Apache-based
software in their distributions.
Did you have a chance to go onto the legal-discuss list? The guys there
know much more about this and may be able to suggest other options?
I did not know such a thing exists; thanks for the reference. I assume
this is the correct place:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/
I will address the above list with this matter.
Thanks again,
-Matt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
