Apache says ASL2.0 is GPL-compatible 384
Steve Loughran writes "The ASF board have put up on the Apache Web site, a page
rebutting claims that the new ASL2.0 license is incompatible with the GPL, claims made by on an
FSF page and covered in
Slashdot last week.The key points are (1) The interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF, it is designed to be rigorously defendable in a court of law.
(2) Rather than look at opinions about compatibility, people should look at the
ASF2.0 and GPL licenses to see if they really are compatible.
(3) If you look at the two licenses, they really are compatible.
This means there is nothing to stop you linking your [L]GPL apps against apache libraries, shipping them with apache applications, and the like." Of course, this is still up to debate.
Stinging... (Score:5, Informative)
According to the article, the comment that caused such a ruckus has not been attributed to any official at FSF and not been communicated to Apache by the FSF.
Advantages of ASL 2.0 (Score:5, Informative)
While the ASL 2.0 is longer than the ASL 1.1, it's worth a read. A lot of effort was made to make this an easy license to adopt and use. If you're currently using a MIT or BSD style license, you may want to consider the new ASL 2.0.
Re:1.0 and 1.1 Incompatible As Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You know what ? (Score:5, Informative)
"Pseudo-clever-licensing" keeps programmers out of court, dude. Apache's patent termination clause will make patent litigators think twice before bringing frivilous lawsuits. Like it or not, licences are incredibly important, and it's good to see Apache put as much effort into it as the FSF have.
For what it's worth, the official FSF response to the ASL2.0 licence is here, by Eben Moglen [apache.org]. Then Apache changed the licence under review. It's possible the FSF webmasters have not realised this, and that the comment applies only to the licence Eben reviewed (which was not the final ASL2.0). So, we could actually be arguing over nothing.
For those who think the BSD license is the best (Score:5, Informative)
Absolutely not. I personally think that the BSD license is a dead end for serious projects, since it inevitably results in forking with no way to re-join if it becomes commercially viable.
Forking a project is in my opinion hugely important, since forks are how all real development gets done, and the ability to fork keeps everybody honest (i.e. if you don't do a good job and keep your users happy, they can always fork the project and go on their own). But equally important is the ability to join back forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can really think of the whole license as nothing more than a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project from either side.
I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Certainly they're right that the text of the licence, not the opinion of the FSF, is what matters. However, they seem to not understand their own licence:
Actually, the Apache License says more than that. It says "any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate" if you file certain lawsuits. Without patent licenses, in theory you can't even run the software. (Which is why software patents are evil, stupid, and must be destroyed.)
The Apache License can take away your right to use the software by revoking patent licenses (admittedly, only if you behave like a scumbag, but that's beside the point).This is what is not permitted under the GPL. The GPL states "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"; a license that says "you can't use this software if you behave like a scumbag and file patent lawsuits" is not compatible with this requirement.
Again, it's not necessarily a bad idea (as the FSF page notes). But it is not GPL-compatible.
Re:vice-versa (Score:3, Informative)
The situation is exactly the same - if you have compatible licences, you can use that software together. I don't see the point there at all, I'm afraid.
Re:Untrue (Score:3, Informative)
(Fill in the licence).
Seriously, I don't think you understand how licences work.
Re:Untrue (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Looting the OSS infrastructure? (Score:4, Informative)
Not "more conservative" at all!
Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
The FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible because that is their job. They are responsible for maintaining and promoting the GPL and thus people look to them for definitive answers on what exactly what the GPL's place in the world is and what licenses it is and isn't compatible with.
Re:Untrue (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Its actually 100% irrelevant (Score:4, Informative)
Or even one that does https using GNU TLS [gnu.org].
Personally, I read the ASL2.0 to be GPL-incompatible, due to extra requirements for distribution. I don't care much, though. If you want to link stuff with Apach, it's Apache-specific anyway, so giving it an Apache-specific license wouldn't hurt too much.
Re:Why not add a compatibility clause (Score:4, Informative)
Say John writes some Apache licensed code, and Jim writes some GPL covered code. Then Joe comes along, takes Jim's code, writes an Apache module that includes Jim's code (after all, the Apache license says it's ok). Joe's module becomes popular and gets included in the big distributions.
At that point, however, Jim gets an offer he cant refuse from our darling Darl, and promptly sues every Linux distributor he can think of for copyright infringement since he doesnt consider the GPL terms on distributing his code fulfilled.
So, are you feeling lucky today?
Re:vice-versa (Score:3, Informative)
Um, not that theirs is the final word or anything, but the FSF considers the following licences compatible with the GPL [fsf.org]:
OpenBSD balking also (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Untrue (Score:3, Informative)
That would be the BSD license.
That's kinda the whole point of the thing. You can't reassign the copyright, but that is not the same thing.
This is the whole difference between the GPL and the BSDL. BSDL allows redistribution under a more restrictive license, and the GPL only allows redistribution under the GPL. Saying "you would equally be able to take Microsoft Word and relicence it as BSD" is nonsense because I have no license to distribute MSWord at all.
Read the BSD license. "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:" It never says I can't distribute it with different conditions as long as my conditions include those in the original license.
Re:You know what? Who the Fuck Cares? (Score:3, Informative)
It's not about the GPL being holy scripture. It is about being able to take code from GPLed projects and combine then with code from ASL licensed projects. If these two licenses aren't compatible then the resulting derivative work can't be distributed legally.
The reason that this is a problem for Apache is that there is a *lot* of GPLed code out there. In fact, last I checked there are quite a few GPLed Apache modules. Now these modules can't be distributed with Apache.
The problem with licensing issues is that they aren't minutia. In fact, licensing is ridiculously important (ask the KDE folks some time).
flawed analysis (Score:4, Informative)
GPL
Nope. Or to be more precise, that's only partially true. The project as a whole must be considered to be under the GPL if portions are GPL'd, but portions that are not GPL'd, but are merely under a compatible license, are still under that compatible license. Thus (practical actual working real-world example here), I have a project that is BSD'd except for one module (an EMACS connector) that is GPL'd. Thus, the whole thing is distributed under the terms of the GPL, but the module is completely separate, and if you delete it, what you are left with is a BSD'd project. If the GPL prevented this, I would have to distribute the module separately, which would be stupid and pointless, but it doesn't, so I don't.
Re:Its actually 100% irrelevant (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. If you're thinking of the Apache HTTP Server, then you're right, but the ASF is hosting far more software by now, including lots of great libraries. For example, as a Java developer, I regularly use packages developed as part of Apache's Jakarta project. Their logging libraries (Log4J etc.) are also quite widely used, as is for example the Xerces XML parser. I'm sure some of these libraries are also interesting for people who wish to develop free software that is licensed under the GPL.