RE: apache 1.3.6 cygwin port integration

[Lars Eilebrecht <la...@apache.org>]

According to Stipe Tolj:

>  we -- the Cygwin Porting Project -- would like to add our Apache 1.3.6
>  port to the Cygwin b20.x environment to the official Apache
>  distribution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your port uses the cygwin library 
(rsp. is linked against this library) it _must_ be distributed under
the GPL. This is a problem, because Apache has its own license which
is not 'compatible' with GPL. In other words, we cannot incorporate a
patch/port which is covered by the GPL...

If the cygwin license terms only apply to binary releases which
include the cygwin library it is probably possible to add your
port to our source distribution (comments?).
But if you distribute binaries of your port under the name 'Apache'
you either violate the GPL license or the Apache license.

[...]
>  We have posted a "request for change" to the bug tracking DB a couple of
>  months ago, but the request still remains "open". That's why we try to
>  contact any responsible Apache Group contributor by this mail. Sorry if
>  this is somewhat non-relevant for you, but the contributor's page on
>  apache.org could not provide any responsible person for integration of
>  new system ports.

The best forum for your request is our development list
'new-httpd@apache.org' (see http://dev.apache.org/ for details).


ciao...
-- 
Lars Eilebrecht            - Imagination is the one weapon in the war
lars@hyperreal.org           - against reality. (Jules de Gaultier)

Re: apache 1.3.6 cygwin port integration

[Stipe Tolj <to...@uni-duesseldorf.de>]

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your port uses the cygwin library
> (rsp. is linked against this library) it _must_ be distributed under
> the GPL. This is a problem, because Apache has its own license which
> is not 'compatible' with GPL. In other words, we cannot incorporate a
> patch/port which is covered by the GPL...

Cygnus has made some modifications to their cygwin library lincense which weaks
up the GPL. I'll check this with the guys from Cygnus, they mentioned before
that they would be willing to "change" their cygwin library license for special
reasons and projects, granding the ability to use the library without the need
to distribute the resulting applications under GPL.

May this be a solution to the licensing problem?

> If the cygwin license terms only apply to binary releases which
> include the cygwin library it is probably possible to add your
> port to our source distribution (comments?).

yep, it applies for binary releases since any patched source distribution _does
not_ include any portion of the cygwin library. Hence an integration of the
cygwin patch for apache would be covered by both licensing terms in source code
form.

> But if you distribute binaries of your port under the name 'Apache'
> you either violate the GPL license or the Apache license.

that's right. We currently do distribute a binary distribution _including_
apache, the CAMP distribution (stand for Cygwin Apache mSQL MySQL PHP3). We
explicitly preconditioned within the distribution that any individual licensing
agreement applies for the individual software package. The guys from Cygnus
know about this binary distribution and they seem to accept it.

Regards,
Stipe

--
Stipe Tolj <to...@uni-duesseldorf.de>

Cygwin Porting Project -- "We build UNIX on top of Windows"
http://www.student.uni-koeln.de/cygwin/

Department of Economical Computer Science
University of Cologne, Germany

Re: apache 1.3.6 cygwin port integration

[tv...@aventail.com]

Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com> writes:

> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > 
> > On Sat, 15 May 1999, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> > 
> > > According to Stipe Tolj:
> > >
> > > >  we -- the Cygwin Porting Project -- would like to add our Apache 1.3.6
> > > >  port to the Cygwin b20.x environment to the official Apache
> > > >  distribution.
> > >
> > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your port uses the cygwin library
> > > (rsp. is linked against this library) it _must_ be distributed under
> > > the GPL. This is a problem, because Apache has its own license which
> > > is not 'compatible' with GPL. In other words, we cannot incorporate a
> > > patch/port which is covered by the GPL...
> > 
> > I posted to -core about this a few months back -- earlier descriptions of
> > the licensing were unclear... I think they've cleaned things up somewhat
> > -- see <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html>.  Essentially
> > we'd be able to distribute the source, but not binaries.
> 
> Is this source GPL'ed?  I'd be wary of putting GPL'ed source into the
> Apache standard distribution (or into the same CVS repository for that
> matter). It opens the whole intellectual property can-o-worms that I
> just as soon avoid if possible.

Which source? The cygwin libaries are GPL'd. I do not know under what
license this patch is. Public domain I assume. 

<IANAL>
This cygwin port gives someone the *option* to build Apache on Win32 using
something other than MSVC. Only when someone decides to distribute Win32
binaries, the source code *must be* made available if the binaries require
the cygwin libraries, and the source code *does not have to be* made
available if the binaries require the MSVC libraries.
</IANAL>

-Tom

-- 
Tom Vaughan <tvaughan at aventail dot com>

Re: apache 1.3.6 cygwin port integration

[Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com>]

Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 15 May 1999, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:
> 
> > According to Stipe Tolj:
> >
> > >  we -- the Cygwin Porting Project -- would like to add our Apache 1.3.6
> > >  port to the Cygwin b20.x environment to the official Apache
> > >  distribution.
> >
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your port uses the cygwin library
> > (rsp. is linked against this library) it _must_ be distributed under
> > the GPL. This is a problem, because Apache has its own license which
> > is not 'compatible' with GPL. In other words, we cannot incorporate a
> > patch/port which is covered by the GPL...
> 
> I posted to -core about this a few months back -- earlier descriptions of
> the licensing were unclear... I think they've cleaned things up somewhat
> -- see <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html>.  Essentially
> we'd be able to distribute the source, but not binaries.

Is this source GPL'ed?  I'd be wary of putting GPL'ed source into the
Apache standard distribution (or into the same CVS repository for that
matter). It opens the whole intellectual property can-o-worms that I
just as soon avoid if possible.

-- 
Bill Stoddard
stoddard@raleigh.ibm.com

RE: apache 1.3.6 cygwin port integration

[Dean Gaudet <dg...@arctic.org>]

On Sat, 15 May 1999, Lars Eilebrecht wrote:

> According to Stipe Tolj:
> 
> >  we -- the Cygwin Porting Project -- would like to add our Apache 1.3.6
> >  port to the Cygwin b20.x environment to the official Apache
> >  distribution.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if your port uses the cygwin library 
> (rsp. is linked against this library) it _must_ be distributed under
> the GPL. This is a problem, because Apache has its own license which
> is not 'compatible' with GPL. In other words, we cannot incorporate a
> patch/port which is covered by the GPL...

I posted to -core about this a few months back -- earlier descriptions of
the licensing were unclear... I think they've cleaned things up somewhat
-- see <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin/licensing.html>.  Essentially
we'd be able to distribute the source, but not binaries.

Based on that, and the comment from Gilmore that by only allowing a MSVC
version of Apache we're essentially spoonfeeding folks to microsoft
(rather than supporting diverse compilation environments on win32, like we
do on all unix variants), I suggested we accept a cygwin32 port of apache.

> But if you distribute binaries of your port under the name 'Apache'
> you either violate the GPL license or the Apache license.

Yes and no, by doing that he creates a "fork" in the source -- and after
the fork, both the apache and GPL license apply to his version (the GPL
binds "tighter", but can't override the apache-advertising clause, for
example).  It's pretty meaningless in practice -- because people doing
work on the "fork"  might as well be doing work on the original source. 
Of course they might always disagree with the apache license and continue
to work on the GPL'd version... which is a possibility in any event.

At any rate, I haven't looked at this port... but if it's clean we should
accept it.

Dean