8:52 p.m.
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
9:08 p.m.
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
9:58 p.m.
David Nielsen (david(a)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
10:15 p.m.
man, 07 08 2006 kl. 22:58 -0400, skrev Bill Nottingham:
David Nielsen (david(a)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
12:37 a.m.
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
3 a.m.
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
7:17 a.m.
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler(a)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
9:13 a.m.
tir, 08 08 2006 kl. 08:17 -0400, skrev Bill Nottingham:
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler(a)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
9:53 a.m.
David Nielsen (david(a)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
10:23 a.m.
tir, 08 08 2006 kl. 10:53 -0400, skrev Bill Nottingham:
David Nielsen (david(a)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
10:53 a.m.
David Nielsen (david(a)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
6531
days inactive
6532
days old
12 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Bill Nottingham -
David Nielsen -
Joseph Harnish -
Kevin Kofler -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Ertzinger