The idea that ALv2 projects can't be added to FreeBSD ports is complete and total hogwash. Pure FUD.
On Aug 31, 2012, at 8:43 AM, C. Bergström <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/31/12 07:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> On Aug 30, 2012, at 8:00 PM, C. Bergström<[email protected]> wrote: >>> While STDCXX is at Apache it will never be BSD licensed. Solution - move >>> it away from Apache foundation and have them transfer some of the >>> additional rights they received to allow recipient foundation to relicense. >>> I thought this would be a win for the project and everyone, but for some >>> reason instead of opening a discussion to transfer - it's just death grip >>> and pushing to the attic. >> What is wrong with ALv2? > Armchair lawyer discussion on this will never end and I'll try to keep this > brief.. > > Apache lawyer views, our lawyer views, your views.. etc (not the problem here) > > FSF views which probably have some weight across the open source community is > summed up with this.. > "Despite our best efforts, the FSF has never considered the Apache License to > be compatible with GPL version 2" > http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html > > That view seems to have been accepted by the FBSD community - The effect is > that the large amount of GPLv2 code in ports/elsewhere can't take advantage > of STDCXX due to it's license. Please note I'm not arguing if this is > "correct", but just the feedback I've gotten. I'm not interested to fight > that. > > Open source works like this in my experience : people use it, they love it > and they contribute back. To get users we need to solve problems for larger > communities - Make sense? > > Can you help clear this roadblock, yes or no? >
