[kaffe] Darwin license vs GPL

[Kiyo Inaba]

Hi,

After having some sleep, and after business hours, I restart to search
how darwin code are released, and whether they can be compatible with
kaffe's current license.

>P.S. By the way, the 'project home' for this project tells me this
>     project is covered by 'New BSD License', but the source code
>     itself declares this code is covered by APSL 1.1. It's a very
>     ugly TRAP for open source developers :-< Does Apple behaves
>     similarly to some companies located in Seatlle area?

The starting point for darwin/arm code is
    http://code.google.com/p/iphone-dev/
and this page explicitly says the license is 'New BSD License'.

But when I try to get the header file (signal.h), the comment says
'The contents of this file constitute Original Code as defined in
and are subject to the Apple Public Source License Version 1.1'.

In 'license list' provided by fsf (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses),
this APSL 1.1 is clearly declared as 'non-free software license'. And
also I found a link (without signing up on apple.com) in 
    http://www.opensource.apple.com/apsl/1.1.txt

So, if the comment in darwin derived code is correct, at least 'I' can
not compile and link (in GPL terminology 'forming a work based on the
Program') kaffe with darwin headers. The person who never made any mod
nor distributed kaffe will get different situation, since the person
need not to accept kaffe's license (of course GPL).

Are there any misunderstanding for the license issue in my observation?

Kiyo

P.S. There is one rescue in APSL 1.1. Sec.7 gives me the freedom to 
     select newer versions of APSL, and APSL 2.0 is thought as 'open
     source license'. But still it is incompatible with GPL (at least
     GPL 2.0).