On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 23:33:11 +0200 "T. Ribbrock" <emgaron@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:03:13PM +0000, Paul Thomas wrote:
> > Yes, I'm sure you're right. The crazy thing from my point of view is that
> > the XFree86 1.1 license is virtually identical to the Apache license.
> The new or the old one? Apache has been forked as well e.g. by OpenBSD,
> as Apache's licence has been changed for the worse as well.
technically, OpenBSD hasn't forked Apache (yet). they are simply maintaining
a late copy of 1.3.mumble.
if you were to fork apache, you'd need to pick a new name for the forked
version (there's language about this in the original apache license), but
you don't need to do this so long as you're just maintaining the old code.
i had proposed a pretty good name (i thought) for an openbsd apache
fork, but it turned out not to be needed.
richard
--
Richard Welty rwelty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security
