On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: > > As someone said, this is the old Apache license. "XXX may not appear > > in the name of derivative works" is ugly and over-reaching; I think it > > should be considered non-free (it clearly exceeds DFSG#4), but I don't > > feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it. I really wish people > > would stop using this license; it's one thing Apache has given free > > software that it really was better without ... > > I think they used that license for that something of their source > derives from Apache software. There was an actual difference if they did > adopt the new 'Apache License' (Version 2.0, January 2004)?
Sorry if I was unclear. The Apache 1.1 license (which this is based on) is considered free--it can go in main. It would be nice if propagation of this license could be avoided by switching to a better one--it's not the best license, with the problems I and Matthew mentioned--but there's currently no requirement to do so to go in Debian. -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
