Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:02:01 -0600 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> To: Volker <volker@vwsoft.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: licensing question APSL Message-ID: <20080214150200.GB18534@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> In-Reply-To: <47B3E21F.1010202@vwsoft.com> References: <47B3E21F.1010202@vwsoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--3uo+9/B/ebqu+fSQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 07:39:27AM +0100, Volker wrote: > While working through the PR backlog, I found two PRs filed containing > source code for two tools (decomment, relpath) under the Apple Public > Source License (APSL). >=20 > I think these tools aren't that bad but before pinging any committer > with that, I thought I might throw the question on the table: What > about importing code under the APSL license? Has there been any > consensus in the past about that license? >=20 > I'm not a lawyer but the license seems to be reasonable suited for the > BSD projects. >=20 > PRs in question: bin/67307 bin/67308 The quotes on the followup are essentially correct except that explicit approval is required by core to add new Non-BSD-Licensed code and that there would need to be a mechanism to not build them as part of buildworld to allow environments that do not want to deal with the APSL to avoid it similar to GPL or CDDL code. -- Brooks --3uo+9/B/ebqu+fSQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHtFe9XY6L6fI4GtQRAlVJAJ4sBR9SrbPruCc0+ouy1iYDRbSvfwCdG/3T TTpxvM/4HAsehAWroyPtSjw= =gyDi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --3uo+9/B/ebqu+fSQ--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080214150200.GB18534>