On Aug 31, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Jim Jagielski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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... Besides, how this is different from say, OpenSSL, is beyond me as well. (for those curious, look at http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2)
