On 09/ 1/12 01:17 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
The idea that ALv2 projects can't be added to FreeBSD ports is complete and
total hogwash. Pure FUD.
Thanks for the top post and your view... Can you actually address the
issue and question?
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?
