Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • This is quite a serious issue (especially considering that the licence for Perl 6 / Parrot is yet to be definitively clarified). I haven't read yet a clear summary of what are the problems with the Apache 2 license -- I know it's OSS-approved, and GPL-incompatible, and not much more.
    • Recalling the whole "ipf" vs "pf" fiasco (which actually resulted in the really cool "pf" being created), I suspect the argument is with these two paragraphs:

      * 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must
      *    not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
      *    software without prior written permission. For written
      *    permission, please contact apache@apache.org.
      *
      * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache",

      --
      • Randal L. Schwartz
      • Stonehenge
      • IIRC, the "ipf" incident hinged on whether or not its license gave one permission to modify the source and redistribute a derivative work. Darren Reed said it didn't. Theo pulled "ipf" from OpenBSD-CURRENT, and the rest is history (the less than cordial exchanges between the two notwithstanding).

        Interestingly, the aforementioned paragraphs you cited look like the opposite of the infamous "advertising clause". Be that as it may, I guess Theo et al could stick with the version of Apache before the license change took effect. I believe that's what they're going to do with respect to XFree86.

        --
        Buck