Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apache License Updated to 2.0

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the new-and-improved dept.

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.

5 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. Interesting... by Ashe+Tyrael · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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."
    1. Re:Interesting... by JimDabell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think it means that if you sue somebody alleging that, say, Apache, infringes upon a patent, you lose your license for Apache.

      If this is true, doesn't this mean that it's not Free Software and non-compliant with the Debian requirements? It seems to be placing a restriction on use rather than redistribution, and is therefore EULA-like.

  2. looks trivialy GPL-incompatible by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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!
  3. Strange by Iplaw-dc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  4. 100% correct and in agreement by occam · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.