Hi, inlined reply On 27/10/2011, at 18:44, Ted Unangst <[email protected]> wrote:
> Uh, actually there are two licenses in that file. The BSD license only > has 3 clauses. The first license does have 4 clauses, but not all > licenses with 4 clauses are BSD licenses. Did the debian dudes read the > license and decide it's incompatible, or is this all a misunderstanding > of what the license is? You are right. I have fwd the mail to the Debian guy and he recognized he was wrong. Is this supposed to be dual licensed then? The first 4 clause license is definitely not bsd. And it just forces me to put credits in documentation.. I have to assume that this is going to be in the manpages or AUTHORS file > You'd have to talk to Spencer about changing it, but I really doubt > that's necessary because that regex code was very widely copied. I can > practically guarantee there are other programs in Debian using it too. > I think its ok. So no need to change it. > [Whatever it is you're building, why not just use the system regex code? > That seems more maintainable in the long run.] Windows doesnt have regex in his sucky posix implementation, so i'm forced to distribute my own if i want it to run there. I can definitely ifdefi'd just for this platform, but for testing its better to use the same source in all platforms. Because I try to use windows the less as possible. This is called 'embedded libraries' and Debian policies enforce to avoid them.. For example: The libmagic in r2 actually can be compiled to use the system one or the embedded. On debian it uses the system one. Another reason is for portability. Gnu libc regex supports some extensions to the standard that didnt work on openbsd libc which may lead to confussions or unexpected issues on end users using my software on different platforms. Thanks again, and sorry for the noise PD: sorry for filling that nontech thread here. I was just reply-all-ing to edd barret's mails O:)
