On 09/ 1/12 02:01 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Aug 31, 2012, at 2:41 PM, "C. Bergström"<[email protected]> wrote:
On 09/ 1/12 01:28 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Your suggestion is that, somehow, one cannot push stdcxx as part
of the FreeBSD ports collection. And that is because it is licensed
under ALv2.
My response is that that suggestion is total hogwash.
That's not an authoritative response - To help resolve this maybe we could
1) Have Apache lawyers say the same thing via a letter to FBSD foundation
or
2) Please have this link updated and provide a reference to where FSF has
stated their revised compatibility views about APLv2 + GPLv2
http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
Ummm... system library
"""
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably
considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and
its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate
works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a
work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms
of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
armchair lawyer response not acceptable - Unless you're an Apache lawyer?
