--On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:37 PM -0500 Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps the default build should disable any features which could make the
licensing of the generated "product" different than the licensing of the
source code, and if the user is happy otherwise then they can enable such
features?
What I have done thus far where this has been a potential issue is to add
--without-gdbm --without-berkeley-db
to the configure invocation.
That'd be fair, I think. BTW, what's the issue with BDB's license? -- justin
Actually there were other reasons that Berkeley db support was disabled, so that was a bad example :(
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that there are no requirements placed on you by merely using the Berkeley db libraries already installed on the end-user's system. Bundling Berkeley db support in a product would be a completely different issue however, and would require either licensing fees to be paid or source code of the product to be published. But none of this issue with Berkeley db seems to be apr's problem.
