You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com> on 2001/12/24 07:11:27 UTC

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 LICENSE

On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 05:39:41PM -0000, stoddard@apache.org wrote:
> stoddard    01/12/23 09:39:41
> 
>   Modified:    .        LICENSE
>   Log:
>   First cut an an all inclusive LICENSE file. Please feel free to format
>   it differently and add any missing components.

Shouldn't the apr and apr-util license notes be in the apr or 
apr-util repositories, not in the httpd-2.0 repository?  -- justin

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 LICENSE

Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.

yea, I thought of that, but decided that I really wanted a license file that included
everything used by httpd in the standard distro.  I don't really have strong opinions one
way or the other though.

Bill

----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <je...@ebuilt.com>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 LICENSE


> On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 05:39:41PM -0000, stoddard@apache.org wrote:
> > stoddard    01/12/23 09:39:41
> >
> >   Modified:    .        LICENSE
> >   Log:
> >   First cut an an all inclusive LICENSE file. Please feel free to format
> >   it differently and add any missing components.
>
> Shouldn't the apr and apr-util license notes be in the apr or
> apr-util repositories, not in the httpd-2.0 repository?  -- justin
>