> On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 14:42 -0500, Argent Stonecutter wrote: >> That's the point. It's not "GPL-compatible" that's an issue for the >> SL client, because the FOSS exception makes it non-GPL-compatible >> itself. > No, APR is what's GPL incompatible. I'm not sure what your point is, because I didn't say APR was GPL compatible.