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

Re: apache non-free?

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:13:00PM +0000, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:34:27PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > 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
> > > legal risk.
> > 
> > Please read again what Ben said:
> >   "Adding some patches is not a derivative."
> Yes.  I believe Ben's wrong, actually. But in any case, I wanted to
> clamp down on the idea that we are putting ourselves at risk legally;
> the Apache Group are our friends, and they will come and talk to us if 
> they have a problem with what we are doing.

If I take apache, add an extra line to it, compile it and call it
apache, and some legal entity calls it derivation, I'll be shitting

At best it is a modified version of the original. In this case, I did
not derive a new version of the original, I merely changed the original.

Now I might be living in some dream world with rose colored glasses, but
I'm going to stick to my guns and say that what we are doing is not a
derivation. Else, upgrading autoconf and rebuilding apache would be
considered the same. Hell, if some lawyer starts going down that road
then using different compilers and headers derives a different binary.
Compiling it _static_ would get you tossed in jail!

I'm going to leave this alone though, since I can see this ending up
being a difference of my sane, well thought opinion, and a screwy
infested legal system that gives words more definitions than Webster


/                   Ben Collins    --    Debian GNU/Linux                  \
`  bcollins@debian.org  --  bcollins@openldap.org  --  bcollins@linux.com  '

Reply to: