[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: launchd



tir, 08 08 2006 kl. 08:17 -0400, skrev Bill Nottingham:
> Kevin Kofler (kevin kofler chello at) said: 
> > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes:
> > > It's APSL 2.0, not Apache. Unless they've changed it. And that therein is
> > > the problem (well, one of them.)
> > 
> > They changed the license from APSL 2.0 to Apache 2.0 a few hours ago:
> > http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-dev/2006/Aug/msg00067.html
> > http://launchd.macosforge.org/
> > 
> > Now of course, if what's required is GPL compatibility (which is what the wiki 
> > says), this won't change much.
> 
> The problem with the APSL isn't GPL compatiblity as much (although
> that didn't help); it's the patent clause. Apache is better
> in that regard.

I'm a bit confused, does better indicate that we might be legally
allowed to use it in Fedora now or does it still make RMS cry?

- David


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]