On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:16 PM, C. Bergström <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > It's quoting the GPLv2. I will not mention the irony of your "opposition" being the result of armchair lawyering...
