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
bricks.
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
did.
Ben
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: