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.

Comments

And yet...

[heironymouscoward]

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.

Re:Interesting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like a standard tit-for-tat clause. Sue me for breaking patent rights and I will rescind your patent rights. Point being that companies using Apache intellectual property should be willing to loan back to the community any IP they develop, and if they aren't willing to make that contribution they shouldn't be a member of the Apache IP community.

Software patents

[Elektroschock]

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.

Re:Software patents

[Daniel_Staal]

Because you don't patent ideas. You patent implementiations.

Or at least you should. This is where the current system has gone out of whack. But the point of patents is to encourage people to develop ideas into actual implementations, and then share those with the world.

Software is something different; it exists in the grey area between an idea and an implementation. It is an expression of an idea. Luckily, we already have something designed to deal with expressions of ideas: copyright. Which is all that should apply to software.

Re:Offtopic : Why bother with the Apache section?

[Reivec]

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.

Is it actually GPL compatible?

[Carl]

It would be really great if this license was GPL compatible since that would allow much more cooperation and use of Apache licensed works in other free software projects. But is it actually GPL-compatible?

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:

Whether or not they are considered compatible by the FSF is an opinion only they can make, but given that a derivative work consisting of both Apache Licensed code and GPL code can be distributed under the GPL (according to *our* opinion), there really isn't anything to be discussed.

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.

Re:Is it actually GPL compatible?

[Tim C]

But it would have been nice to try to cooperate a bit more.

Well, not to flame or anything, but cooperation works both ways. The FSF appears (to me) to be completely unbending in its interpretation of the spirit of the GPL, and what is and isn't compatible with it. They'll help you to change your licence to make it compatible, but they won't shift a millimetre on their own position.

Okay, so their philosphical and moral stance more or less requires that behaviour, but it does seem a little unfair to criticise other groups for not cooperating.

Re:Is it actually GPL compatible?

[Tarrio]

When you make a work consisting in the combination of works covered by two different licenses, the resulting work must be licensed under the terms of both licenses at the same time. If they have conflicting clauses, then the licenses are incompatible and the work is not distributable at all.

The GPL says a couple of things about this: in clause 2 it says: "[...] when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." In clause 4 it says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." And in clause 6 it says "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

In plain English this means: when you make the combined work I talked about before, the whole work must be distributed under the terms of both licenses combined; but as the GPL requests that it be distributed under the terms of the GPL (no less, no more), if the "other" license includes restrictions the GPL does not have, then both licenses are incompatible and you cannot distribute the resulting work.

So, whether your license is GPL-compatible is not just a matter of opinion. You only have to ask yourself: "does this license have any restrictions the GPL does not have?" If it does, then the license is GPL-incompatible. If it does not, then the license is GPL-compatible.

Re:Is it actually GPL compatible?

[Carl]

The FSF appears (to me) to be completely unbending in its interpretation of the spirit of the GPL, and what is and isn't compatible with it. They'll help you to change your licence to make it compatible, but they won't shift a millimetre on their own position. Okay, so their philosphical and moral stance more or less requires that behaviour, but it does seem a little unfair to criticise other groups for not cooperating.

Agreed. my point was that it would have been nice of the Apache hackers to send a little note to important groups like the OSI, Debian and the FSF to announce their intend to use this license. They worked on it for three years. How hard was it to send a little note to licensing@fsf.org, debian-legal@debian.org and osi@opensource.org saying

hey guys/girls, we are going to use the following license for our projects. Could you tell us whether or not it would qualify as "Open Source"/"Free Software"/"DFSG Free" and/or whether you see any problems or incompatibilities with other licenses/projects wishing to use it?

Then they could have corrected any little mistakes in it and made it really clear that it was OSI-certified and/or GPL-compatible. That would have been nice to the community as a whole. It is a bit silly that they created confusion about these points when it was so easy to make it all cristal clear by contacting the right people in the first place. It is not that bad if this new Apache license isn't OSI-certified or GPL-incompatible. But it is damn nice to know in advance.

Re:Interesting...

[IIH]

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?

I'm no lawyer either, but the way I read is that there is software in Apache that is covered by patents, but the owners have given people who use Apache a licence to use them. However, if someone decides to sue over one of their patents in Apache, then they lose the licence from the other patent holders, posibly leaving them open to an infringment suit themselves.

In short, is seems to say: you play nice, we'll play nice, and we'll all play with everyone's toys, but if you won't let someone play with your toys, then everyone else will gang up on you and not let you play with any of theirs either.

AKA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:100% correct and in agreement

[Anonymous Coward]

The software industry is nothing like the pharmacutical industry.

There is no notion of a garage developer in the pharmacutical industry.

Scientific research in the software industry is often made by universities and is given away.

The monies involved in research and development do not compare.