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