On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:21 PM Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi, > > Changing my vote back to +1 (binding). > > > Ok, based on the information provided I'm changing to a +1. We should > > figure out if glog can really be considered acceptable, but if it is > > confirmed as optional then its moot per the discussion in > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280 < > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-280> > From my understanding the GPL licensed files in question, have an > exclusion clause, and are part of Autoconf which would make them acceptable > as per. [1] > > The problem I see is how autoconf files are actually applied with their headers and licenses. If I look within HTTPD for instance, there's no headers, nothing to indicate a problem or potential issue with the code - https://github.com/apache/httpd . This aligns to how I've understood autoconf to be applied. However, glog is retaining the original headers - https://github.com/google/glog - this makes it look more suspicious that there's a licensing issue. To me, this says that glog is using the GPL license because they have continued to apply GPL to the codebase. Basically, it seems like glog has misapplied the license. > Thanks, > Justin > > 1. https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#build-tools < > https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved#build-tools>
