From: "Razvan Corneliu C.R. \"d3vi1\" VILT" <razvan.vilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > If you take a look at the packages included in Red Hat Enterprise Linux > and Fedora Core, you'll see that not all of them are GPL. Give OpenSSL > and Apache a look. OpenSSL _is_ a BSD-style license and GPL compatible. It, like most other core components, libraries and functionality in Debian and Fedora distributions are GPL or at least "GPL compatible." Apache is an end-user service outside of the core components, libraries and functionality and it doesn't quite have to be GPL compatible. If something it going to go into init, IMHO, it had better be GPL or at least GPL compatible. > Should we also exclude Mozilla and Gecko derivatives on that same > thinking? For core components, libraries and functionality? Yes! But for end-user services or applications, no. > CDDL is a simplified Mozilla Public License (see my previous > email with the diff). Yes, I know. I've even written code for dual-GPL/MPL projects. But when you're talking the _core_init_ -- hell no. ;-> > You love their license but you're willing to take the Intellectual > Property risks upon your shoulders? The license is so important to you > but the fact that the license might not be valid is not? Weird. Because IP has to be proven to make you subject to them. Novell/Mono has an "exit strategy" to an EMCA-compliant version. And HP and Intel are big backers of the BSD class libraries. But you have _no_excuse_ for violating a license. You are at the mercy of the copyright holder when you violate a license. And given all that, there are IP issues with Java too. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
