On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Timothy Halloran wrote:
> Date: 10 Feb 2003 13:43:24 -0500 > From: Timothy Halloran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Licensing again. > > Does this mean the ASF has taken away the ability for others to do > derived works (including derived works that make the code commercial or > GPL -- with a simple name change)? That would mean the license is no > longer open source (by OSD anyway)? > People who *use* Apache code are free to use it in any way they want (subject, of course, to the Apache license requirements). That means that they can incorporate GPL/LGPL code on their own -- no problems. The user of Apache software can even redistribute Apache+GPL code in a package if they want -- nothing has changed there. The issue at hand for Apache is "what are the license terms that cover the code that Apache *itself* distributes"? Users of Apache code, quite naturally, will assume that the Apache Software License covers *all* the code in that distribution. That assumption is violated when a GPL/LGPL package is included, and this matters a *lot* to organizations that, for whatever policy reasons, choose not to utilize GPL/LGPL code. Craig McClanahan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
