On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:38 PM, "C. Bergström" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09/ 1/12 01:35 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:27 PM, "C. Bergström" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> stdcxx ends up linking against *EVERY* C++ application if it's used in the >>> default compiler setup. (Which is what I was trying to achieve) That >>> includes *******GPLv2******** software in ports. Get it? >> How exactly is APLv2 different from 2-clause BSD or 3-clause BSD in >> this respect? The BSD licenses are just as incompatible with GPLv2 as >> APLv2 is. > Our views may be the same, but others are not > > from the apache website > > "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 > FWIW, however, the ASF does not agree with that. That is pretty common knowledge. So your view agrees with that of the ASF.
