Hey Hiram, Is the resolution on this that we can just add a new header to his file in our distro?
On 1/19/07, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks Oren! On Jan 18, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Oren Ben-Kiki wrote: > On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 18:09 -0500, Hiram Chirino wrote: >> ... >> Yeah the differences between the two get a bit complex and IANAL >> too :) >> >> But I think the biggest difference between the Licenses are that >> Apache licensed software is a bit more liberal with how it can be >> used. For example it allows commercial companies to make >> modifications and redistribute without giving back the changes. >> Which is contrary to the GPL philosophy. In essence the Apache, BSD, >> and MIT licenses are more Business friendly. >> >> So I light of that, you might not actually want to Apache License >> it.. And that would be OK... > > I don't feel that strongly about it. It isn't exactly the crown > jewels :-) > >> But if you don't mind other folks using your file (even for >> commercial reasons), you would just need to also add this to the >> header for us to be able to consume it: >> >> Copyright [yyyy] [name of copyright owner] >> >> Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); >> you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. >> You may obtain a copy of the License at >> >> http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 >> >> Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, >> software >> distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, >> WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or >> implied. >> See the License for the specific language governing >> permissions and >> limitations under the License. > > Fine, put that in there with my name (Oren Ben-Kiki) and the current > year (2007). And hopefully within a "short period of time" this > will be > in the Autoconf archive and the problem will go away. > > Share & Enjoy, > > Oren Ben-Kiki >
