tir, 08 08 2006 kl. 08:17 -0400, skrev Bill Nottingham: > Kevin Kofler (kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx) said: > > Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> writes: > > > It's APSL 2.0, not Apache. Unless they've changed it. And that therein is > > > the problem (well, one of them.) > > > > They changed the license from APSL 2.0 to Apache 2.0 a few hours ago: > > http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-dev/2006/Aug/msg00067.html > > http://launchd.macosforge.org/ > > > > Now of course, if what's required is GPL compatibility (which is what the wiki > > says), this won't change much. > > The problem with the APSL isn't GPL compatiblity as much (although > that didn't help); it's the patent clause. Apache is better > in that regard. I'm a bit confused, does better indicate that we might be legally allowed to use it in Fedora now or does it still make RMS cry? - David -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
