Re: Licensing claims (fnmatch)

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 01:31:34PM -0600, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Nick is right, I needed to pursue this with all apr_fnmatch.c committers > for this specific change, once that first question is resolved. Thanks for > the confirmation, Ryan! Small fixes were also suggested by several >

Re: Licensing claims (fnmatch)

I am first asking in the general case, where we adopt a functionality wholesale from a BSD or MIT licensed project, whether we are willing to keep the code under the original license, fnmatch as one example? Nick is right, I needed to pursue this with all apr_fnmatch.c committers for this

Re: Licensing claims (fnmatch)

I still monitor the list, I just don’t post. If I remember correctly, this code came from httpd 1.3. I might have made some small changes, but I am pretty sure this code’s lineage could be traced all the way back to when it was BSD licensed. I say go ahead for my part. Ryan On Thu, Feb 22,

Re: Licensing claims (fnmatch)

On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 11:30 -0600, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > then all further patches to apr_fnmatch.c would still be licensed in > BSD terms and consumable upstream, provided the PMC is agreeable; > > 5. Major modifications/additions to third-party should be dealt with > on a case-by-case basis

Re: Licensing claims (fnmatch)

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 6:30 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Would this be acceptable to APR PMC? +1

Licensing claims (fnmatch)

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 03:27:57PM -0600, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >> I ran into the same headache with my complete rewrite of >> the fnmatch.c logic of BSD that we ship in APR, and delivered >> my rewrite of the file