Re: apache non-free?
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.
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org email@example.com
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org firstname.lastname@example.org