Subject: Re: License Question
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:26:59 -0700
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:26:59 -0700
on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 10:06:32AM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull (turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp)
wrote:
> >>>>> "kms" == Karsten M Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> 
>     kms> on Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 06:59:13PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf
>     kms> (brian@collab.net) wrote:
> 
>     >> 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.  =)
> 
>     kms> Similar rationale would then apply to Debian packages as
>     kms> well?
> 
> It is surely the intention of Debian policy that it would not.  I
> don't know about Apache specifically, but Debian is normally careful
> to keep third-policy add-ons in separate package, for this among other
> reasons.

Actually, I was informed offline that there is an issue, but some sort
of agreement has been worked out.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>    http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?       There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/         http://www.kuro5hin.org
   Are these opinions my employer's?  Hah!  I don't believe them myself!


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]