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",
      *    nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written
      *    permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
      If this is like the "ipf" incident, the problem may be that Theo wants OpenBSD to be able to create more secure "derived" products without a lot of fuss. And having to go back to the ASF for every little security patch approval might be prohibitive.

      Of course, the objection might be something entirely different. Just a guess.

      --
      • Randal L. Schwartz
      • Stonehenge
      • I was under the impression was with the patent clause; which I quote:

        "If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."

        I also wonder what are the license compatibility issues (notably for mod_pe

      • 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 ch

        --
        Buck