Subject: Re: License Question
From: "Karsten M. Self" <>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:18:06 -0700
Mon, 4 Jun 2001 13:18:06 -0700
on Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 06:59:13PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf ( wrote:

> Slightly more broadly, we've had a couple cases where people have
> created tarballs of Apache code plus a whole bunch of other modules
> and settings, and released those as "apache", and the bug reports came
> back to us.  So, technically, .rpm's called "apache 1.3.20.rpm" that
> aren't released by the ASF are not legal, but we don't enforce that.
> We're working on a set of guidelines for what third-party packagers
> must do to call their package "apache-*" and not risk our wrath.  =)

Similar rationale would then apply to Debian packages as well?

Karsten M. Self <>
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]