On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Andrew Deason <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 21:19:34 +0000 > Simon Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 23 Feb 2010, at 21:01, Andrew Deason wrote: >> >> >> [...] ruling out GPL as we have to because of the IBM Public License >> >> incompatibility (even apart from any other issues). >> > >> > Erm, even contributions that don't touch IPL stuff? Not that I can >> > imagine myself wanting to submit anything under a GPL-y license. >> >> Unless the GPL'd code has an additional license clause which >> specifically permits linking with IPL'd code, you can't distribute an >> object file which contains code from both licenses. This is a >> non-starter for our binary packagers. > > By not 'touch'ing I meant: does not link against IPL code, is not > derivative of IPL code, is not copied from IPL code, etc.
Ok. But the likelihood of such a thing being useful in OpenAFS is low, and besides, lest it be a temptation for an issue to be caused, we don't want it. As it is I am going to have to throw away and rewrite the APSL code in our tree, which thankfully is small and mostly duplicated in a BSD package Apple has anyway... -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
