On 2/4/06, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 01:49:06AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Wasn't this issue solved in Apache License Version 2.0? > > The license, yes, but a quick look at /usr/share/doc/apache2/copyright > shows some pieces that still use the old one. I havn't looked to see > how much. > > > If this is case, the most 'critical' package that still has this kind of > > non-freeness seems to be php... > > That's a matter of perspective, of course--Subversion is more important > to me.
Ever heard of G/LAMP? (GNU/Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP/Python/Perl) PHP has many millions of installations around the world, and is used by admins and even users a lot. SVN is used by developers or people who want to live on the edge, which I think is less than the number of PHP users. andrew > > (By the way, though I don't think it's currently critical to the thread, > Subversion has the restriction "nor may "Tigris" appear in their names". > "Tigris" != "Subversion".) > > > And yes, I think it's a battle worth fighting, 'cause a DFSG-free PHP > > would benefit Free Software and Debian users, but PHP is not DFSG-free, > > currently... > > You're saying "this is onerous enough to make it non-free" (aka "it's a > battle worth fighting") "because it's non-free". That's not a very > persuasive argument. :) > > -- > Glenn Maynard > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net