Slashdot Mirror
Apache License Updated to 2.0
Roy_Fielding writes "The Apache Software Foundation has approved an update
to the open source
Apache License (Version 2.0) that will be mandated across all Apache projects
starting on March 1st.
I have been working on variations of this
license for the past three years, trying to
balance the many different goals of the revision. That includes making the license easier for
non-ASF projects to use, improving compatibility
with GPL-based software, allowing the license
to be included by reference instead of listed
in every file, clarifying the license on contributions, and requiring a patent license on contributions that necessarily
infringe a contributor's own patents.
The result is a license that is compatible with other open source
licenses, such as the GPL, and yet still remains true to the original
goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development
across both nonprofit and commercial organizations." While it has yet to become OSI-certified, it will probably will be so Real Soon Now, and in the meantime it's fun to compare licenses.
I see why you have problem with patented software in OSS projects, but why should I donate all my software patents to the FSF for contributing to Apache ?
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be saying that if you sue anyone for breach of patent for something in apache, then you lose your patanet license?
Can someone explain this onein plain english, please?
"How fine you look when dressed in rage."
Can someone explain to me some specific problems there were with the old license? Not having it in every file I am sure makes things a bit easier, but what else does this do exactly? The original poster didn't make this too clear, and I don't exactly go around studing licenses unless I know it conflicts with something for me personally.
in the meantime it's fun to compare licenses.
I don't know about CowboyNeal, but I sure have a different definition of fun than he does!
Doh!
After something of the same journey with licenses for my own open source work, I finally came to the conclusion that Richard Stallman had seen the inevitable truth clearly when he designed the GPL, namely that free software thrives best when there is a definite barrier between it and commercial software.
Our software now uses a dual license model in which it's either licensed for free under the GPL, or licensed for a fee under a standard commercial license.
Without exageration, nor wanting to start a religious war, I believe the GPL is an astonishingly robust answer to the question of how to share creative works without subsidising commercial interests that inevitably seek to quash the independent creative spirit.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
The Apache License 2 is just a workaround for a real problem. Software patents are bad for development and bad for the economy. The US Federal State Commission called for change in a recent report, the benefits of software patents are falsified by emirical ressearch.
However, as software patents serve for the benefit of patent attorneys the institutions are intrested in an extension of the system, by widening the scope of patentability regardless of an economic foundation. Politicians like this quantitative patent approach, the result are many trivial patents of low quality and disfunction of the patent system atlarge. Many low quality patents endanger our information society. So it is nice to see that organisation like Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure build a counter-force to patent lawyer interest groups in Europe. So far the lobby work against software patents and the Eurolinux petition were very succesful. In my opinion we need a world wide movement in order to avoid Eolas vs. MS oder Amazonvs.Barnes&Noble ecc. will happen again. The GNU Public License is incompatible with Patent law and most projects and SME cannot afford to get patents. They, the innovators, don't want or need software patents.
seriously OT, but using latest version, linux and windows.. either have to refresh 10 times to get the page to render, or text is too far to the left..
I am going to guess that it is because apache is one of the MAJOR reasons linux ever took off in any commercial setting in the first place. Preconfigured apache on linux boxes that were extremely cheap made very attractive web servers to many people and businesses. This was a major boost to linux awareness and usage. I think we all know how popular apache is as a webserver, and I think it is fair to say that the majority of apache servers out there are running on a *nix platform. Without apache, these platforms may not have ever got much exposure.
I couldn't find the Apache 2.0 license on the FSF license list. The only "official" remark seems to be the following email thread which says:
Maybe it was a bit premature to announce this license without waiting for OSI approval and requesting feedback from the FSF. Of course the Apache group can do whatever they want without asking for approval and blessing from other Open Source and Free Software groups. But it would have been nice to try to cooperate a bit more.
If IBM sues anyone saying that apache is a patent violation, then they have given up their right to use any other patents incorporated into apache. So, if redhat patents something and incorporates it into apache, thus giving away a license to use it in any apache licensed works, IBM's right to use this patent will cease.
They tried "improving compatibility with GPL-based software", but is it compatible or not?
From a quick read it seems to be a valid Free Software license, but clause 4.d may make it incompatible with the GPL. This would be unfortunate for such a trivial condition. GPL doesn't allow placing additional restrictions on distribution, so is requiring a NOTICE file, and additional restriction?
The patents section might also be GPL-incompatible, but it might be GPLv3-compatible when GPLv3 comes out.
Has anyone seen of any comments from FSF about this?
Altogether, it's a good license, and vastly superior to the last proposal which was ~100 pages long. (slight exageration)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Why haven't they just used the GPL?
Why not just cross-license Apache under the GPL, Apache license, MPL, LGPL, apple public source license, helix public source license, and NPL?
To stop using open source programs. We already know that some North Korean built a supercomputer using a linux cluster. If that wasn't bad enough the "Cluster of Evil" can now serve up files to the world. We're Doooooomed.
Not Another Friggen Liscence
I've seen that exact same comment before, attached to a comment on a different story.
It's a troll, move along, nothing to see here.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Is going to lawschool a requirement for beeing a geek nowadays?
Ciryon
bleh, they should rather release the whole bunch under a BSD-style license, preferably the 2-clause variant. I'm getting tired of all these restrictive licenses
Does the Apache license allow commercial distribution of code based on the apache code, in the case where the modified source code is included as part of the commercial package, but the end-user is prohibited from redistributing the source code?
I thought it was clear but I'll explain again.
My company writes software that we like to distribute as free software. I started doing this in 1995, and the tools and packages I make are quite widely ported and used. When I started my company our policy was that anything we could not rapidly turn into a product we would release as open source. Software that is not used dies, we figured.
Our license was a BSD-style license that basically allowed people to do what they liked with the software.
In 2001 I noticed that some commercial products incorporating our code were being sold. Very good, I thought, it's nice to see our work being used. But when I asked them to provide us with some of the extensions and patches they'd made, the answer was "no, this is not possible". Now, seeing people use the results of years of work then refusing to contribute anything back rather annoyed me. My company was selling support licenses for our products, and these were in fact our competitors.
The solution came in the form of an article by Richard Stallman which explained why using the LGPL was in fact giving help to closed-source developers who directly or indirectly compete with open source developers.
We decided to switch to the GPL, and in 2002 we moved all our OSS products to this license. At the same time, we had a number of commercial licensees. To give these groups a non-viral package, we developed a dual licensing model.
Since the code is ours, it's our right to license it to specific users under specific terms. The GPL is not incompatible with commercial licenses, so long as it's the copyright holder who decides what license to apply in each case.
To summarize: for OSS developers we use the GPL, for commercial developers we use a commercial license.
It works well. We've had no GPL violations, and enough commercial licensees to make it worth developing our core packages further.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
What is unusual about this license is that it grants a license to the copyright. Most licenses only grant a right contained and protected by copyright law. For example, a company may grant a license to distribute a good, or to reproduce elements of an original work of authorship. I have never heard of being able to license a copyright. We assign and transfer copyrights and we license trademarks and rights granted under tm, (c), and or patent. I wonder if this agreement is really valid. Lets say that someone modifies some code and then registers the copyright and does not inform the Library of Congress about the Apache license. Moreover, what if the "thief" then files suit against derivative authors. The problem here is that fed law trumps the law of contracts and under federal law you can share copyright in a work- it's called joint ownership. One suggestion is that Apache could grant a nonexclusive right to create derivative works so long as they meet the highest standards in the industry. It would be interesting to see if Apache filed the copyright through the LOC? It might be interesting to look into how foreign civil law treats software because it is more natural law/moral rights based and does not allow corporate entities to own the full ip rights of a creator.
Jax
Does anyone know when GPL Version 3 will be released?
IANAL but you sure sound like one :)
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
I've been digging through archives, and it seems FSF's Eben Moglen hasn't made public comments about this version of the proposed ASL-2.0, BUT, he has commented on a previous version:
Ebens November 16th comments
Well worth a read, he mentions some of the changes being considered for GPLv3.
For anyone interested in GPLv3. It was supposed to be ready for early 2003, but after a few delays it had to be delayed for a year as Eben had already arranged to have a year off. I think he'll be back soon, so maybe late 2004? (that information is from previous sources in my head, not from the above linked comment. Also, he was still working for FSF during his year off, just not full time. AFAIK.)
Most importantly, it won't come out 'til it's ready. Prof. Moglen deserves a lot more recognition than he gets. He really knows his stuff and the FS community is lucky to have him.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Works fine for me on Firebird 0.7 on Fedora and Win XP Pro.
You could also say that Samba server also helped to significantly make (almost as much as Apache) the reputation for *nix platforms in everyday corporate offices and even small businesses.
"...and in the meantime it's fun to compare licenses."
You're a real fan of root canals and Britney Spears too, aren't you?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
Software (et al.) patents are essentially:
- legalized monopolies, and monopolies are bad.
- legal minefields for software initiatives, and mines are extremely counterproductive in (real and analogous) terms.
- an involuntary subsidy by the software industry for the self-serving legal industry.
- an impediment to open (and commercial) software development.
- an idea based solution to an implementation driven market (ideas are cheap; implementation is hard).
- a backwards implementation benefitting manipulators of the system, not the brilliance in innovation.
- an upside down system benefitting those with big pockets (and fat lawyers) instead of the underdogs (for whom patents were very originally intended).
- a joke in any industry (e.g., software) where production is a mere disk copy away (i.e., there is no manufacturing impediment in software, so even the original concept of patent protection is absurd)
- completely absurd to implement in theory (due to impossibility of any patent examiner's job) and practice considering the infinitude of like ideas in different forms (with patents as with novels, plots, etc.)
- absurd since software is a written form of thought --- and you shouldn't be able to patent (anything but especially) thoughts.
That's just off the top of my head.
IOW, patents are a Lehman (prounounced "lemon") law perpetuated so the legal industry can forcefeed carcinogenic lemonade to the software industry.
Firebird .7 here, XP Pro...
I've noticed that one one or two occasions, but only had to refresh once to correct the situation. Only have noticed this on slashdot, no other site I have visited has done this...
This might be a tad offtopic but anyway, a while ago I was wondering how a big OSS project (like Apache) does a license change? If there are dozens of people involved who have contributed their work to the project under license X, wouldn't you need to ask each and every one of those people if you want to change that license in any way?
Mozilla Firebird 0.7 (Gecko/20031103) here; and I definitely have this problem. I'd say approximately every fifth view of a Slashdot page only the menu on the left and the page header appear. Refreshing once or twice normally solves the problem.
I don't blame the Gecko engine for this but rather the Slashdot HTML which fails to validate as any version of HTML.
you praise openess, but you won't even give the name of the company, so we can download the "open" source code?
That says it all about free software people.
You are like some religous nut, who surfaces from his hole every time the letters G, P, and L show up in an article.
Combine that with the canned tripe that you spew about how great RMS and Moglen, et al are, it is quite clear you need some kind of counseling. You have serious individuation and imfatuation issues.
But unlike most healthy men, you worship other men. Quite sad really.
I am having the same problem using the recent nightlies. I often have to refresh two or three times to get it to render correctly.
Can't pin all the blame on Firebird though. Have you ever looked at Slashdot's HTML code?
But unlike that with thy men, whow up in an article. Combine that with the canned tripe that RMS and Moglen, et al are like some kind of counseligous nut, P, and L show up in an artime time the letterious individuat with the canned imfatuatious ind L show up in an article. Combine that wit is quite cle every time the letters G, P, and L sad really.You are most healthy men, you spew about how great RMS and Most healthy men, you worship other men. Quite some religous nut, who surfaces from his hole every time the letters G, P, and L show up in an article. Combine that with the canned tripe that you spew about how great RMS and Moglen, et al are, it is quite clear you need some kind of counseling. You have serious individuation and imfatuation issues. But unlike most healthy men, you worship other men. Quite serious individuation and imfatuatious individuatime the letters G, P, and L show up in al are, it is quith the canned trip other men.
Then your journey is not yet over because the GNU General Public License (GPL) is not a "barrier between [GPL-covered software] and commercial software" nor is it "open source". The GNU GPL was written by the Free Software Foundation for the free software movement years before the open source movement began. It is a profound mistake to call the GPL anything to do with the "open source" movement. Also, the GPL can be a commercial software license. Perhaps you meant "proprietary" instead of "commercial"?
You appear to be using the word "free" to refer to price and not freedom. This is a side effect of paying attention to the open source movement where software freedom is eschewed instead of learning about the ideas in the license you're using. You could be distributing software in such a manner that your terms conflict with the GPL (because it is not allowed to "impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein" to quote the GPL section 6). There's nothing in the GPL that prohibits me from distributing covered software for a fee (this actually applies to all free software, not just the GPL). In fact, the FSF says I should make as much money as I can from distributing free software for a fee.
Digital Citizen
One of the greatest virtues of the old Apache license was that it was not "viral." If a viral license can be stamped on the code at will, it may eventually lead to a situation in which one must be subjected to the restrictions of the GPL to use the work. This would not be a good thing.
I don't get it. I truly don't believe that ideas are as valuable as you make them out to be.
I value the hard work of the implementor much more than the guy who happened to patent an idea that has probably been thought of by dozens of other smart guys but who aren't so egotistical to think that they are the first ever to imagine it.
I'd like to see a software patent that is truly innovative. But I don't believe one exists. Take the patent you applied for from your Liquid Audio days. From the description, it sounds like a good idea. Bravo. You had a good idea. Do you really think that you are the only one who ever had a similar idea? Let alone the first? If you do, you just don't "get it."
Apache.org runs on FreeBSD.
I bet the driving motivation behind this license update was to resolve legal issues with PHP (which is under the Apache license) linking to the MySQL client library (GPL!). Due to the grey area licensing issues between the Apache and GPL licenses, the PHP guys were actually planning to drop MySQL support from PHP! Good to know they are working on fixing that.
I've seen that exact same comment before, attached to a comment on a different story.
It's a troll, move along, nothing to see here.
That would have a lot more strength if you linked to the alleged earlier comment, hence allowing anyone to see that your allegation was true.