On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Leif Hedstrom <[email protected]> wrote: >> Again, this could all be moot if libev's LICENSE is compatible with ALv2 >> (which looks like it is). But the same consideration needs to be taken for >> other event libraries with different licenses. > > Yeah, if it's a moot point, lets leave it at that. I think going down this > hole, and try to cover for every possible library and dependencies on those > libraries would be painful, to say the least. Lets provide patches to those > libraries if/when it happens, and binary packages can provide such fixes as > necessary (without tainting the Apache TS code base). > > I'd be curious to hear if any of our mentors or HTTPD developers have any > thoughts on this? Is this generally something you worry about, depending on > non-ALv2 compatible libraries (like, glibc)?
First: IANAL. The ASF does have a legal affairs committe. Specific questions should go to them: <http://www.apache.org/legal/> Short: glibc is actually compatible as a dependency, as we would consider it a "System Requirement" of TS, if you are running it on linux. (Just as Sun's libc is a system requirement if it is to run on Solaris). In Addition, with how glibc itself is licensed, it doesn't 'infect' code just running on top of it -- so it seems moot to me. See <http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html> for all terrible details. If we used libev directly, I would generally consider that a direct dependency, and so it would need to be under a compatible license. libev appears to be a dual-licsense 2-clause BSD or optionally GPL (though the authors wording in the headers is extremely unique and dubious), but we are fine using under the present 2-clause BSD style license. If you have specific questions, I would suggest asking the ASF legal committee though :) Thanks, Paul
