On Friday 18 May 2007 20:49, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > So we're not going to achieve that goal of making GPL version three > > compatible with the existing Apache licence. I regret that." > > I haven't really followed the GPLv3 debate so sorry if this is a stupid > question, but can't we just stick with GPLv2 if we need to?
No. ASL2 is less compatible with GPL2 than it is with GPL3. We can stick with GPL2 if we don't use any ASL2 code. Problem is, Apache Commons is ASL2. :( Having said that, the bzip2 implementation is GPL2+ so we can use that. It's only tar support that's a problem then. (Tar support would be really helpful imho, it would produce significantly smaller containers). We don't use any of this code yet, but we'd like to. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070518/32b2d765/attachment.pgp>
