On Jan 18, 2007, at 5:50 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
I have just pinged the people in the Autoconf project and they are
interested in adding this to their archive. This may take a while
though.
Thanks!
BTW, AFAIK the main difference between the Apache license and the
GPL is
that Apache may be distributed in binary-only form; since my files
have
no binary form I don't see how they are incompatible. But IANAL.
Yeah the differences between the two get a bit complex and IANAL too :)
But I think the biggest difference between the Licenses are that
Apache licensed software is a bit more liberal with how it can be
used. For example it allows commercial companies to make
modifications and redistribute without giving back the changes.
Which is contrary to the GPL philosophy. In essence the Apache, BSD,
and MIT licenses are more Business friendly.
So I light of that, you might not actually want to Apache License
it.. And that would be OK...
To solve your problem in the meanwhile, I hereby formally grant you
the
permission to change the license line to "... the same terms as the
Apache server" in your distribution. I trust that would settle the
issue?
But if you don't mind other folks using your file (even for
commercial reasons), you would just need to also add this to the
header for us to be able to consume it:
Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner]
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.
Oren.
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:23 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote:
Hi Oren,
Thanks for the reply. Apache Projects can't distribute any source
code that is GPL or LGPL licensed. But we can distribute Apache or
BSD or MIT style licensed source code. We would not be be
distributing Autoconf, but expect our developers to have it installed
prior to building our source code. We could make the same assumption
for your ac_doxygen.m4 too but making someone download and install
that file seperately is a bit annoying for new developers checking
out the project. We were hoping to distribute your ac_doxygen.m4
with our source code to make it easier for them to have Doxygen
support.
So is there any chance you could at least dual license that file so
that could include it?
Regards,
Hiram
