On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:48:50PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > -1 for apr-util-0.9.9 - for licensing issues alone. Just in case the > scope of this issue isn't clear, I obtained an svn binary for my > Solaris 10 box, for example. It is linked to libgdbm, and through > deliberate fault of the .pkg'er who created it, it does not bear a > valid LICENSE, NOTICE, or COPYRIGHT. We have created this scenario > for well meaning users, distributors and bundlers, and we must close > it.
We're voting on a source release here, and it's ASL licensed. What's the licensing problem in releasing the ASL-licensed source? In general, for any library we link to, someone could come along and create a GPL equivalent, it's not really our problem. It's the distributors problem, and when we create binaries - it's our responsibility to comply with any licensed involved - but that's outside this current vote/process. -- Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
