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.
You know what ? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why people like the BSD license.
This is why OpenBSD forks code when others play stupid license tricks. If anyone has to think about what a license might mean, then they're not busy fixing bugs. Pseudo-Clever-Licensing keeps lawyers happy and programmers unproductive.
FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (Score:2, Insightful)
A most excellent point.
It doesn't matter for the most part (Score:2, Insightful)
Quandry (Score:1, Insightful)
Why not add a compatibility clause (Score:5, Insightful)
I never trust people that say "trust me, the contract can be interpreted in the way that you want it to." If someone wants a legal document to have a particular property, then the document should explicitly state that it has that property. But again, IANAL.
vice-versa (Score:3, Insightful)
Authors real opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Apache is a pretty good piece of software and if folks don't like the new license, well that's just tough. They have a right to license their code however they choose to. The people who write to them and tell them otherwise really do need to drop off the planet.
-sirket
License "foo" is crap! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPL... (Score:5, Insightful)
True, everyone chooses the license they want, the one they are comfortable with. In the OSS world, there are a lot of licenses and the GPL is probably the less free of all, that's all the parent is saying.
fuck them all - i am coding for fun and _no_one_ will tell me which license to choose or which feature to add
There is a time to code for fun, and - as you will see when you will be a little more mature - there is a time for reward, or some form of retribution. If you "fuck all" your users, you will get no reward. You don't even need to get a license because you probably don't care about any distribution in the first place.
Point 2 (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps the following summary is more clear.
2- Rather then listen to opinions, see for yourself. If you look at the two licenses they really are compatible.
Because some people DO care. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because some people DO care. If they want to share their code but only with people who will share their modifications (non-internal use only), that is their right.
The different licenses support different developmental methodologies and agendas.
S/He who writes the code chooses the license and if you don't like that, then write your own code.
Re:GPL... (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately distributing non-GPLd software with Linux is asking for trouble. Linux is the best-selling open software product and choosing any other license than GPL means an extra hurdle for your software.
But I guess that's exactly the kind of "freedom" RMS likes. Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.
Re:You know what ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Totally agree, but:
This is why people like the BSD license.
Like BSD has never had licensing issues wind up in court.
Shoe on the other foot. (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone who empathises with users trying to get a workable program, these kinds of license wars crack me up. The next time you complain about the spec being inadaquate or changing: remember that programmers too are mostly incapable of expressing what they want in English and pleasing all of their masters.
Re:GPL... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, 'free' isn't probably the best word here; the Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] licenses hit the nail on the head with "share alike".
Re:vice-versa (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that the facts might get in the way of your argument, of course.
Re:It doesn't matter for the most part (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (Score:1, Insightful)
The article said that you should read the two licences and decide for yourself. Someone has already provided a POV that A2.0 was incompatible and Apache has provided a contrasting view.
So RTFA and look at both licences so you can decide for yourself.
Re:Shutup (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what? Who the Fuck Cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, I usually don't get this annoyed, but we've gone through a bunch of these recently, and I'm sick of it.
The GPL is not Holy Scripture
The GPL is nice. It works for a large amount of stuff. However, it very much does NOT work for many other things, even in the Open Source world. I don't (and you shouldn't) want everything to be GPL'd. The GPL has a LOT of problems, freedom to copy aside. It is definitely not suitable for every purpose, given our current legal framework.
We should measure a license by how obnoxious and restrictive it is, not some idiot litmus test of GPL-compatibility. I prefer that we gravitate to a small number of general licenses for simplicity's sake, but there is no real good reason that they all HAVE to be GPL-compatible, any more than they all HAVE to be BSD-compatible.
The various ASL versions are all very benign and nice BSD-ish licenses, that may or may not be GPL compatible. They have very liberal code reuse and copying provisions, and very few restrictions. If they are GPL-incompatible, well, then, that's life. I'm not going to get angry over this, any more than I get upset because I can't use GPL libraries with my proprietary code.
Please quite focusing on the idiotic minutia, and pay attention to the hard issues of license lock-in and IP coralling prevelant in software licensing today.
-Erik
Re:You know what ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider this - if you beleive MS writes shitty software, wouldn'y you want them using as much BSD code as possible ? wouldn't that help standards compliance ? Wouldn't that help make MS's products less bad ? Wouldn't that inturn make life better for everyone ?
or is your argument basically "screw companies"?
The BSD license is about writing good software. The GPL license is about anti-corporatism.
Re:GPL... (Score:3, Insightful)
yes, whereas in America your political opinion had no effect on the jobs you could have did.. oh, er....
Re:An Open Source Constitution? (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL is merely the embodiment of these values, but not the only one by any means.
Its actually 100% irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Its irrelevant however because Apache is built upon a set of non GPL compliant libraries like OpenSSL and always has been. "Apache 2.0 not GPL", well big deal: Apache 1.0 not GPL either.
You can probably build a non https:// Apache without a few other modules that is GPLable but everyone I've dealt with seems quite happy with the state of apache and the license it uses right now.
This is very different to the XFree 4.4 case where the rules got changed on people.
Its very much like "Windows 98 not GPL".. not news.
Re:You know what ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another opinion matters more... (Score:5, Insightful)
however, the key to all of this is that only the copyright holder to a piece of software can decide to bring a lawsuit. Thus, if the copyright holder thinks the licenses are compatible, then they damn well are (in that case only).
Bottom line: contact whoever owns the copyright to the software you want to use if you have any questions about your rights under the ASL or GPL.
cleetus
(a soon to be lawyer)
Get your facts straight (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load of absolute crap.
There is absolutely no problem distributing non-GPLed software (even proprietary software) with Linux. Just because the kernel is GPLed doesn't mean the software which runs under it must also be GPLed. glibc is LGPLed (ie. you can link non-GPLed and proprietary software against it), asn are nearly all of the core libraries.
Oracle ships with Linux, and it is proprietary. XFree (pre 4.4) ships with Linux, and has (had) a BSD-ish (but GPL compatible) license. Openssh ships with Linux and has a BSD license. And this list goes on.
There is absolutely no issue whatsoever in distributing non-GPLed software with a GPLed operating system.
There is an issue with combining code from non-GPLed products and GPLed products into a new product, which is why XFree 4.4 is going the way of the Dodo, with virtually every distribution under the sun sticking with 4.3 or going with one of the forks (freedesktop.org or what have you), but that is a result of the amount of GPLed software linked to X libraries no one is willing to give up, not a result of the Linux operating system.
This is why Apache is working toward a GPL-compatable license, and why the FreeBSD folks went through the effort they did to make their license GPL compatible
And yes, this is the kind of Freedom RMS and others, such as myself, like: the freedom to chose the license we prefer for our code, which for many of us is a "share-alike" license such as the GPL.
And the results speak for themselves: the first viable competitor to go up against Microsoft in a generation (Linux), thousands of free software projects where the code is guaranteed to remain free in perpetuity, and widespread cooperation between two philosophical camps despite differing opinions on where to emphasize the freedom (developers a la the BSD, vs. users a la the GPL), rabblerousing from the proprietary sidelines via agent provocateurs, and their less intelligent cousins, trolls such as yourself, notwithstanding.
Score 4 insightful? *ROFL* (Score:4, Insightful)
Which no one was doing anyway, since all the of the earlier Apache licenses were clearly and uncontroversially non-GPL-compatible.
The Apache Foundation does not and has never used the GPL on any of their work.
I'm rolling on the floor laughing at the mods that fell for this.
These people care (Score:3, Insightful)
If the new Apache license is GPL compatible, then source code released under that license can be redistributed linked to GPL code. If not, then to redistribute such a combined work you have to have either special permission from the authors of any GPLed components to put additional restrictions on their code or special permission from the authors of the non-GPLed components to rerelease their code with fewer restrictions. Since that's enough of a PITA that it will make code reuse less common, it would be very nice if it wasn't necessary.
At least they are talking now... (Score:5, Insightful)
Email message from Eben Moglen on license-discuss [crynwr.com]
But why do they do this through public statements on their webpages and/or public mailinglists. Can't these people lookup each other phone number? Really, if I honestly needed an opinion on something which seems so important as this from either the FSF or the Apache Foundation I would call them up (or send a private email) asking to discuss this in person to clear up any confusion that might result from random statements on some website and/or mailinglist. Neither the FSF or Apache did the community as a whole a service by not trying to talk this out first before publishing all these statements about each other.
I agree, but Not entirely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:infection or cure (Score:3, Insightful)
--jeff++
Who should be compatible with who? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, there's history and momentum to deal with, but are we going to be as inflexible and lethargic about improving our licenses as proprietary companies are with improving their code? The licensing issue needs to be dealt with, but lets try not to kill the better license. The patent clause ought to be added GPL, not removed from ASL.
Licensing could kill OSS/FS (Score:3, Insightful)
The OSS/FS movements really need to get their licensing 'ducks' in a row...
Re:GPL... (Score:2, Insightful)
Could you elaborate on this point with an example and an explanation? I fail to see how the GPL makes distributing non-GPL'd software with Linux any different than distributing non-GPL'd software with Windows or OS X. Indeed, the demo of UT2K3 was actually integrated into Gentoo Live CDs. I haven't heard of any OS release from Apple or Microsoft that has integrated major 3rd party software products into the install media itself beyond trivial OEM branding in icons and explorer enhancements.
Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.
Wow. The other day I was reading about the anti-gay marriage protesters in San Francisco. One apparently brandished a sign that read "I hate faggots, but love AIDS." I felt bad for those couples that have had to face that kind of hateful public censure until I read your post. Everything is in perspective now. It must really suck to be as oppressed as you.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
As Joshua states, the GPL doesn't give you any patent rights, so any restrictions around patent rights do not interfere with the GPL.
Re:Untrue (Score:3, Insightful)
No, no, no, you cannot relicence other people's software! If you could relicence BSD software as GPL, you would equally be able to take Microsoft Word and relicence it as BSD.
Compatibility is *exactly* that: software under one licence can be brought together with software from another. Yes, you need to obey both licences when you have such a derivative. No, this doesn't mean any software is relicensed.
If you still don't understand, tell me this: by what right may I take a piece of BSD software, and relicence it, given I am not the owner of the copyright? What legal right do I have to do that?
Re:You know what ? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not a matter of wanting to use their code, it is a matter of preventing them from using others' code to maintain their monopoly.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know what ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Its actually 100% irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Its actually 100% irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, as far as I can tell, it is all theoretical until somebody does it and the case goes to court. What Apache says is insignificant. Only the content of the license counts.
Re:GPL... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's pretty much accurate.
This is not exactly correct - although I see where you get it. The GPL requires that if you use the code, you must allow anyone you distribute to to have the same freedoms you were given.
As to the slavery analogy, I think it's quite accurate. Some folk argue that if you can't sell yourself into slavery, you're not really free. This makes a very close analogy to the argument that says that if you can't close the code, it's not really free.
Re:You know what ? (Score:3, Insightful)
-
Public domain says: "You may use this code however you see fit."
- The BSD license says: "You may use this code however you see fit, but you must acknowlege my contribution."
- GPL says: "You may use this code in any manner which is consistent with my political agenda."
See the discrepency?There's a big difference between releasing Free software because you decide to do so of your own free will, and doing so because a third party is forcing you to do it. Forcing people to do things against their will is the antithesis of freedom.