Re: apache non-free?
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 03:31:22PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:28:48PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Come on, it's not a "derivative", it's a patched version. A derivative
> > is if you use portions of it to create a new version, or turn it into a
> > "different product" (e.g. fork it).
> >
> > Adding some patches is not a derivative.
>
> Uh, I hope you didn't mean it the way you said it, but as you said it again
> in different words in another mail, it seems you do. You are wrong, of course.
> If it is not a derivative, what is it instead? "A patched version",
> undoublty, but this is a false alternative. It is certainly not an unmodified
> copy, but it stems from it, so it must be a derivative. If any lawyer is to
> look at the situation, he will see the common code, and see that there are
> modifications, issue settled. He will not ask twice if the changes are done
> by "patching" or whatever other way.
>
> For the issue of this thread it doesn't matter. It's simple enough to ask
> the Apache group if they give their permission, and they likely will. It is
> not a matter of the DFSG or debian-legal. If they do not want it to be
> called apache, the package can be renamed simply enough, but it is probable
> enough that Apache will not even want it to be renamed.
>
> However, your rationale is entirely mistaken, and I am surprised that you
> take this erroneous stance.
It does matter. If "permission" has to be asked by each person who uses
the source, then it is not DFSG compatible (nor is it compatible with
even the GPL).
If they meant that modifying the source was a derivative, then they
should spell that out. IMHO, a derivative is a completely new set of
source, derived from the original. IOW, if I want to make a new web
server made for clusters, and I create it using the apache source as a
base, that is a derivative.
If what they meant was that modifying the source, even the slightest,
meant you could not say it was apache anymore, then they would have said
that. Modifying and deriving are two different things.
I can modify my house, and it is still the same house. I can derive a
new house using the plans of the old one, perhaps even using the same
land and foundation, but that isn't modification.
Ben
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: