On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Pedro Giffuni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --- On Mon, 11/7/11, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> >> >> >> Remember, there are no pure Apache 2,0 licensed >> operating >> >> systems. >> > >> > Who said that?? >> > >> > http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang >> > >> >> I intentionally did not say, "Apache-compatible". > > Feel free to add an Apache License on it and start an > "Apache BSD" podling :). > >> I think my point >> is clear enough. If we want to interact with >> platforms then we need >> to touch platform-specific API's, and these tend to be >> under either >> proprietary licenses that permit redistribution (MS >> Windows SDK) or >> under copyleft licenses (Linux). >> > > Feel free to touch any platform-specific API's in dmake. > >> Since the Apache HTTP server is rumored to be able to open >> a network socket, this suggests that there is some way >> for Apache products to call into OS-level services and >> still comply with Apache licensing guidelines. >> > Nop one is saying you have to remove libcurl. Really you > can interact however you want with GPL'd software including > gnumake, gcc, or dmake, you just don't include it in to SVN. >
I don't think that is true. We cannot have the GPL code included in the release. I think that is what really matters. If you download GPL code from another website, a library say, and link it into AOOo, then that is a problem. It doesn't matter that the library was not in SVN. The problem is that it is in the build. Dmake is the easier case since it never becomes part of the build. It is only a build-time tool. So should be OK to use wherever we store it. > Is this discussion really going anywhere? > Only if it leads to increased understanding. These are important questions. I think it is important that we all understand the answers, as well as the principles behind the answers. I may be wrong. In that case, I will learn something new. It is a win-win situation ;-) -Rob
