On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 04:47:04PM -0500, William Hooper wrote: > T. Ribbrock said: > > 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, > Link please. The only thing I see on OpenBSD's web page is that they > Chroot httpd. >From the man himself: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107714762916291&w=2 You might also want to have a look at the ensuing thread that follow that message. > > as Apache's licence has been changed for the worse as well. > With respect to GPL compatibility Apache's license hasn't changed. It > never has been GPL compatible. The problem is that the old licence was reasonably understandable, whereas the new licence can only be understood with the help of a lawyer. In my opinion, this is a clear change for the worse. Cheerio, Thomas -- ===> Netiquette - read it, use it: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html <=== ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ribbrock http://www.ribbrock.org "You have to live on the edge of reality - to make your dreams come true!"
