Re: Licensing claims (pcreposix)
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 under both licenses. For which OpenBSD is still grateful, by the way :)
Re: Licensing claims (pcreposix)
+1 On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > I made a fundamental mistake as we removed PCRE from > the source tree of httpd; although we stopped distributing the > pcre library in 2.4.x source tree, our own util_pcre.c is largely > founded on the work of Philip Hazel/Cambridge; although the > larger work doesn't need to be advertised in our LICENSE and > NOTICE (except in the case of binaries derived from those > sources, which is up to the packager/builder), the origin of this > specific source file remains largely based on pcreposix.c. > > We can later ask for a relicensing by the PCRE effort, or we > may agree to license that entire file, including our corrections > and enhancements back under this compatible license. Since > it is largely pcre's own license, I would like to keep them in > harmony but not keep this file under a bifurcated license. > 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 under both licenses. > > I have the attached proposal to correct this in trunk for any > immediate release on the 2.4.x branch, and would open a > dialog with Philip and Cambridge over their preferred manner > of handling this file. Cambridge may already have a statement > on simplifying the advertising aspects, much like MIT. > > Any objections? -- Eric Covener [email protected]
Re: Licensing claims (pcreposix)
+1 > Am 20.02.2018 um 22:27 schrieb William A Rowe Jr : > > I made a fundamental mistake as we removed PCRE from > the source tree of httpd; although we stopped distributing the > pcre library in 2.4.x source tree, our own util_pcre.c is largely > founded on the work of Philip Hazel/Cambridge; although the > larger work doesn't need to be advertised in our LICENSE and > NOTICE (except in the case of binaries derived from those > sources, which is up to the packager/builder), the origin of this > specific source file remains largely based on pcreposix.c. > > We can later ask for a relicensing by the PCRE effort, or we > may agree to license that entire file, including our corrections > and enhancements back under this compatible license. Since > it is largely pcre's own license, I would like to keep them in > harmony but not keep this file under a bifurcated license. > 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 under both licenses. > > I have the attached proposal to correct this in trunk for any > immediate release on the 2.4.x branch, and would open a > dialog with Philip and Cambridge over their preferred manner > of handling this file. Cambridge may already have a statement > on simplifying the advertising aspects, much like MIT. > > Any objections? >
Re: Licensing claims (pcreposix)
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Any objections? +1
