I'll write to the FSF and get their position on the matter. As mentioned earlier, the answer would apply not only to APRUTIL, but to Python and Perl, too (plus N other projects).
No need to keep going around and around. I'll just ask. Cheers, -g On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 07:54:17PM +0000, Joe Orton wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:53AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > --On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:30 AM +0000 Joe Orton > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >2. a violation of the GDBM copyright to redistribute apr_dbm_gdbm.c > > >under the terms of the ALv2, since the FSF considers the ALv2 to impose > > >extra restrictions beyond that of the GPL. (and it's the FSF's opinion > > >that counts) > > > > I'm not sure how you view apr_dbm_gdbm.c as a derivative work of GDBM. Is > > it the fact that it calls some C functions qualifies as a derivative work? > > Well the more I think about it the more clear-cut it gets :) > apr_dbm_gdbm.c is based on GDBM: it is derived from the GDBM source code > (gdbm.h), it will not compile without GDBM, it does not exist except to > be used with GDBM. It is no mere coincidence that the symbols match up, > and that when you compile the file it actually does something useful. > > I'm a bit surprised this is a contentious issue: this is how the GPL is > and always has been interpreted. It is illegal to redistribute modules > for the Linux kernel except under the terms of the GPL because such > modules are derived works of the Linux kernel by virtue of using its > interfaces. This is no different. > > > Yes, the fact of apr-util *linking* to GDBM causes the entire work to be > > GPLd (as it is derived from GDBM), but we don't distribute it that way yet > > doing so is not a violation of the AL v2.0. Please read: > > > > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html> > > I know it's the ASF position that the GPL is compatible with the AL v2, > I don't want to get into that argument. The issue is that the FSF, > which is both the copyright holder of GDBM and author of the GPL, > apparently considers the two licenses to be incompatible. > > Is the responsible thing for us to do to blithely ignore the opinion of > the copyright holder? I can't imagine so. > > Regards, > > joe -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
