Using GPL Libraries ( was Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM)

[Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>]

Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:jwoolley@virginia.edu]
>>
>>On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>
>>
>>>BTW, I realize that there is a lot of questions over whether the ASF
>>>license and the GPL are compatible, but the State-Threads library is
>>>GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed.
>>
>>That's true.  And on its own, you're right, it would mean we could not
>>distribute a state threads mpm under an apache license.  But the state
>>threads library is dual licensed MPL *or* GPL.  I'm reading the MPL
> 
> but am
> 
>>as yet unclear as to whether it's equally viral.
> 
> 
> Okay, so fair warning, dual-licensing ALWAYS confuses the hell out of
> me.  
> 
> I believe that everybody is willing to accept MPL licensed code, but I'm
> not sure how that works.  If you commit GPL'ed code to that library,
> that is legal, because the library is under the GPL.  But then, doesn't
> the whole library have to become GPL'ed?  I always thought that with a
> dual-licensed piece of code, you are basically allowed to commit the
> code using either library, and you are allowed to use the code with
> either library.  But if that is the case, then why bother with both
> licenses, just use the least restrictive license and only have a single
> license.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> 

Changing the topic.
As I read the question is can we link-to/use a GPL library.
I think that the answer to this should be the same regardless if we are 
using it in a small un-important spot, or in the main section of some 
mission-critical.

(you either can or you can't)

RE: Using GPL Libraries ( was Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM)

[James Cox <im...@php.net>]

> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> > As I read the question is can we link-to/use a GPL library. I think that
> > the answer to this should be the same regardless if we are using it in a
> > small un-important spot, or in the main section of some
> > mission-critical. (you either can or you can't)
>
> You're right.  We should not provide support for GDBM, because it's GPL
> and not LGPL as I would have assumed.  So apr_dbm_gdbm.c should also be
> GPL, which means APR-util as a whole would have to be GPL, etc.
>
> It's starting to look like we need a separate repository for "addons" that
> are GPL-infected and thus must be distributed separately and downloaded
> separately.
>
Why?

from the PHP experience I have, we only include GPL and other modules that
are not PHP in our repository if we feel that the development is very borked
or stagnant. I don't think having a repository for addons is a good idea, as
that is the equivalent of forking.

 -- james

Re: Using GPL Libraries ( was Re: Looking for some help developing a MPM)

[Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Ian Holsman wrote:

> As I read the question is can we link-to/use a GPL library. I think that
> the answer to this should be the same regardless if we are using it in a
> small un-important spot, or in the main section of some
> mission-critical. (you either can or you can't)

You're right.  We should not provide support for GDBM, because it's GPL
and not LGPL as I would have assumed.  So apr_dbm_gdbm.c should also be
GPL, which means APR-util as a whole would have to be GPL, etc.

It's starting to look like we need a separate repository for "addons" that
are GPL-infected and thus must be distributed separately and downloaded
separately.

This $!@% sucks.

--Cliff