Re: apache non-free?
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:37:14AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Adam McKenna 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.
> IANAL, so could you give me a link to somewhere where a lawyer says that
> with this interpretation there is no legal risk for us in any country?
Now that *is* ridiculous.
We are in no legal risk in any country because, quite clearly, the
Apache Group are the only people who could file a suit, and they're
patently not going to.
The question here is about doing the right thing, it's not about real