Is the Apache 2.0 License enough to allow Launchd to be moved to the "Things to look at.." part of this page? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit?highlight=%28init%29
--Joe
man, 07 08 2006 kl. 21:52 -0400, skrev Joe Harnish:
Is the Apache 2.0 License enough to allow Launchd to be moved to the "Things to look at.." part of this page? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit?highlight=%28init%29
I don't know, another thing to look at is the Upstart project from Ubuntu.
https://launchpad.net/products/upstart
I'm unsure where they actually keep their code though, maybe someone could hit Scott for some more data.
- David
David Nielsen (david@lovesunix.net) said:
man, 07 08 2006 kl. 21:52 -0400, skrev Joe Harnish:
Is the Apache 2.0 License enough to allow Launchd to be moved to the "Things to look at.." part of this page? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit?highlight=%28init%29
I don't know, another thing to look at is the Upstart project from Ubuntu.
https://launchpad.net/products/upstart
I'm unsure where they actually keep their code though, maybe someone could hit Scott for some more data.
If it's in the obvious place on bazaar.launchpad.net, there's no code to speak of.
Bill
man, 07 08 2006 kl. 22:58 -0400, skrev Bill Nottingham:
David Nielsen (david@lovesunix.net) said:
man, 07 08 2006 kl. 21:52 -0400, skrev Joe Harnish:
Is the Apache 2.0 License enough to allow Launchd to be moved to the "Things to look at.." part of this page? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit?highlight=%28init%29
I don't know, another thing to look at is the Upstart project from Ubuntu.
https://launchpad.net/products/upstart
I'm unsure where they actually keep their code though, maybe someone could hit Scott for some more data.
If it's in the obvious place on bazaar.launchpad.net, there's no code to speak of.
I'll try asking around if they feel like sharing some ideas with us here, maybe we could get some cross distros work going if the design appeals to everyone.
- David *Legwork* Nielsen
David Nielsen wrote:
https://launchpad.net/products/upstart
I'm unsure where they actually keep their code though, maybe someone could hit Scott for some more data.
If it's in the obvious place on bazaar.launchpad.net, there's no code to speak of.
I'll try asking around if they feel like sharing some ideas with us here, maybe we could get some cross distros work going if the design appeals to everyone.
Scott from Ubuntu mailed me the specs a while back. I will upload it in the new init wiki page. Someone else needs to look at the code when its available and compare it with initng and others.
Rahul
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.
Kevin Kofler
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.
Bill
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
David Nielsen (david@lovesunix.net) said:
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?
Apache license is legally feasible. Haven't actually looked at any of the code.
Bill
tir, 08 08 2006 kl. 10:53 -0400, skrev Bill Nottingham:
David Nielsen (david@lovesunix.net) said:
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?
Apache license is legally feasible. Haven't actually looked at any of the code.
Thank you, that was basically the answer I was looking for, since nothing legal is stopping us it wouldn't be a waste of time to read the code.
- David
David Nielsen (david@lovesunix.net) said:
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?
Apache license is legally feasible. Haven't actually looked at any of the code.
Thank you, that was basically the answer I was looking for, since nothing legal is stopping us it wouldn't be a waste of time to read the code.
Note that it's still GPL-incompatible, but it's shippable.
Bill
-
Bill Nottingham -
David Nielsen -
Joseph Harnish -
Kevin Kofler -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Ertzinger