regexpr

[Rob Hartill <ha...@ooo.lanl.gov>]

I asked Howard why he used the regexpr stuff that he submitted to us
with his mod_includes.c for conditional HTML.

> To: hartill@lanl.gov
> Subject: Re: why use this regexp package 
> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 12:17:12 -0600
> From: Howard Fear <hs...@sweng.stortek.com>
> 
> FWIW.
> 
> > > Until someone has compared it to the *ton* of other regexp packages
> > > out there, and has a reason why it is superior to one of the more
> > > widely used ones (say, Henry Spencer's), my vote would be not to.
> 
> If I were going to add this as an integral piece of Apache, I probably
> would go get one of Henry's.  I couldn't find a recent one when I developed
> the xssi stuff, so I snarfed the most recent package I could find that
> didn't have restrictions (i.e. GNU copyleft).  I'm not sure how the
> various copyrights (Apache's, GNU, and Henry's) fit or don't.  And, I
> suspect that to be a major issue given the popularity and direction
> of apache.
> 
> Howard Fear

So it looks like Henry's version is a good choice if the license permits.
I tried to find the source, but only managed to find some FreeBSD 
references at
   ftp://ftp.cdrom.com/.16/FreeBSD/FreeBSD-CVS/src/lib/libcompat/regexp/

Henry's license blurb looks freindly enough to be used by Apache, but I'm
not so sure how the license affects selling SSL versions though..


 *      Copyright (c) 1986 by University of Toronto.
 *      Written by Henry Spencer.  Not derived from licensed software.
 *
 *      Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any
 *      purpose on any computer system, and to redistribute it freely,
 *      subject to the following restrictions:
 *
 *      1. The author is not responsible for the consequences of use of
 *              this software, no matter how awful, even if they arise
 *              from defects in it.
 *
 *      2. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented, either
 *              by explicit claim or by omission.
 *
 *      3. Altered versions must be plainly marked as such, and must not
 *              be misrepresented as being the original software.


Comments?