+1
> Am 20.02.2018 um 22:27 schrieb William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>:
>
> 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?
> <fixclaims.patch>
