Subject: Re: License Question
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 10:06:32 +0900

>>>>> "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.


-- 
University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."