On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 09:39:01AM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Greg Ames and I are working on an Apache 2.0 patch to do keep-alive reads
> in an event-loop (to free up threads blocked on keep-alive connections). I
> expect we will run into some of what you are now observing and dig into the
>
--On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 1:35 PM -0800 Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'll write to the FSF and get their position on the matter. As mentioned
earlier, the answer would apply not only to APRUTIL, but to Python and
Perl, too (plus N other projects).
FWIW, Manoj pointed this out to me
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Sander Striker wrote:
> This would make the use of any OS header files a derived work of the OS,
> I can't imagine you think this is the case.
Not a good example; there's a specific exemption for that case IIRC.
--Cliff
I'll write to the FSF and get their position on the matter. As mentioned
earlier, the answer would apply not only to APRUTIL, but to Python and
Perl, too (plus N other projects).
No need to keep going around and around. I'll just ask.
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 07:54:17PM +, Joe Orto
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 20:54, Joe Orton wrote:
> > I'm not sure how you view apr_dbm_gdbm.c as a derivative work of GDBM. Is
> > it the fact that it calls some C functions qualifies as a derivative work?
>
> Well the more I think about it the more clear-cut it gets :)
> apr_dbm_gdbm.c is based
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:46:53AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:30 AM + Joe Orton
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >2. a violation of the GDBM copyright to redistribute apr_dbm_gdbm.c
> >under the terms of the ALv2, since the FSF considers the ALv2 to i
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:37 PM -0500 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps the default build should disable any features which could make
the
licensing of the generated "product" different than the licensing of the
source code, and if the user is happ
Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> Perhaps the default build should disable any features which could make the
> licensing of the generated "product" different than the licensing of the
> source
> code, and if the user is happy otherwise then they can enable such features?
>
> What I have done thus far wh
--On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:37 PM -0500 Jeff Trawick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps the default build should disable any features which could make the
licensing of the generated "product" different than the licensing of the
source code, and if the user is happy otherwise then they can
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
However, this *might* mean issues for downstream participants who
package apr-util; that in and of itself, might cause us to remove GDBM
support, but it's not because of any licensing issues. If we're not
comfortable allowing third-parties to create GPLd code out of AL
--On Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:30 AM + Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
2. a violation of the GDBM copyright to redistribute apr_dbm_gdbm.c
under the terms of the ALv2, since the FSF considers the ALv2 to impose
extra restrictions beyond that of the GPL. (and it's the FSF's opinion
t
Robert Norris wrote:
[ Resending, as there's been no discussion, and I'm afraid it may have
been missed. I need an answer soon. Thanks :) ]
Greg Ames and I are working on an Apache 2.0 patch to do keep-alive reads in an event-loop (to free up threads
blocked on keep-alive connections). I expect we
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 15:35, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Noah Misch wrote:
> >
> > > The only question in my mind is whether or not apr_dbm_gdbm.c is a
> > > derivative work of GDBM. I think the filename alone gives a pretty
> > > strong clue: and unless we want to get Genuine Legal Advice to the
> >
Noah Misch wrote:
>
> > The only question in my mind is whether or not apr_dbm_gdbm.c is a
> > derivative work of GDBM. I think the filename alone gives a pretty
> > strong clue: and unless we want to get Genuine Legal Advice to the
> > contrary, we must default to the presumption that it is a de
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 10:30:19AM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Well, if we believe the AL v2.0 is GPL-compatible, then this is a moot
> > point, I believe. We're not distributing GDBM (which would be against ASF
> > policy), but our license *is* GPL-compatible (mainly because we say it is).
>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:10:33PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Monday, February 23, 2004 5:04 PM -0800 Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Same here, but would love to have my understanding corrected, if it is a
> >problem.
>
> Well, if we believe the AL v2.0 is GPL-compatibl
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 04:25:41PM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
> >
> > Bringing this up in the appropriate forum. IANAL, but...
> >
> > gdbm is licensed under the GNU GPL. apr_dbm_gdbm.c uses the GDBM
> > interface, hence is a work based on GDBM, hence all of apr-util must be
On Feb 23, 2004, at 11:11 PM, Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Scott Lamb wrote:
significant difference between them. In transferring either big or
small files with httpd-2.0 HEAD and ab over loopback on Darwin
(keepalive on). Which I'd think would be the ideal situation for
seeing
an imp
At 01:33 PM 2/23/2004, Scott Lamb wrote:
>On some older versions of platforms (Linux 2.2), these #defines exist but do
>not work - it's not possible to set them. Can I assume that if APR is built
>with a kernel in which it does work (Linux 2.4), it will be run with one as
>well? Or should I inc
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> Well, if we believe the AL v2.0 is GPL-compatible, then this is a moot point,
> I believe.
"GPL-compatible" means that Apache-licensed code can be added to a GPL
product and that that product can still be distributed under the GPL, not
the other way
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, Scott Lamb wrote:
> significant difference between them. In transferring either big or
> small files with httpd-2.0 HEAD and ab over loopback on Darwin
> (keepalive on). Which I'd think would be the ideal situation for seeing
> an improvement...
Neither ab nor loopback make f
[ Resending, as there's been no discussion, and I'm afraid it may have
been missed. I need an answer soon. Thanks :) ]
I'm considering moving my application to APR over my own internal
utility library (APR is much nicer), so I've started implementing a
simple descriptor event loop to get a feel fo
--On Monday, February 23, 2004 5:04 PM -0800 Greg Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Same here, but would love to have my understanding corrected, if it is a
problem.
Well, if we believe the AL v2.0 is GPL-compatible, then this is a moot point,
I believe. We're not distributing GDBM (which would
On Feb 23, 2004, at 1:43 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:33:31PM -0600, Scott Lamb wrote:
I'm putting together a patch to use SO_(RCV|SND)TIMEO for
apr_socket_timeout where available; I expect I'll find it has better
performance on some platforms, as it would no longer require usin
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 10:53:39PM +0100, Sander Striker wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 22:25, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Joe Orton wrote:
> > >
> > > Bringing this up in the appropriate forum. IANAL, but...
> > >
> > > gdbm is licensed under the GNU GPL. apr_dbm_gdbm.c uses the GDBM
> > > interf
25 matches
Mail list logo
