Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
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?
The source release will create a stealth GPL package, by default.
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.
Of course; that is why options like --with-somepackage are good. And if you
are working in a toxic-license environment (say, your machine's c compiler
has a GPL clib(!)) then you are already aware every package you builds is GPL.
But this was a stealth behavior as I've said several times before; *WE* caused
this action, the user did not choose this action. And that is why our package
is the problem, not the user.
