[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.

I think you're wrong here.  I've never seen anything that would be "too
close" to be a derived work.  Copies are either verbatim, or derived works.
This may be a problem with how the Apache License uses the language --
"derived works" is normally used in an inclusive sense, to cover everything
to which the original's copyright applies.  Here they're trying to use it
in an exclusive sense, to somehow exclude unmodified copies, without
specifying what they consider a modification.  Even the Artistic License
does better than that.

But regardless of the legal status of "adding some patches", we actually
add some 640kB of patches to apache, which is certainly more than can be

Richard Braakman
Will write free software for money.
See http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/resume.html

Reply to: