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 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.
I dunno. The way I look at it is that I write software for the purposes of writing software. I write it for fun, or because I want it. If some corporation I share my code with wants to turn around and sell my software, then more power to them. If they think my software is better than what they can write, then I'm glad to help make software better. It's not going to happen, but hypothetically, if it did, then hey, bonus.
As for improvements - if I have the right to dictate what people do with my code, why don't they have the right to do what they want with theirs? They have competitors, I don't (or don't care).
Basically, it comes down to 'if you can help someone, help them', the philosophy I prefer. The GPL seems to be more along the lines of 'freedom on my terms or not at all'.
--Dan
Sorry but RMS is too busy trying to force people to use UnFree doc licenses. Check my journal.
With regard to patents in particular, the concept is completely necessary to promote innovation. It seems sad (not to mention annoying) to have to explain it yet again every time an article on patents appears on Slashdot.
If you're an inventor and you invent something useful, after having spent many hours and money, why should somebody else be free to come along and simply steal your idea? Patents exist specifically to grant limited-time monopolies to reward inventors for their effort. If you're another inventor and want to cash-in on a patented invention, well it forces your hand to invent something even better or perhaps even revolutionary. Again, patents promote innovation.
With regard to software patents in particular, there is nothing wrong with being able to patent inventions that just so happen to use software as part of said invention. The fact that there are bad/silly software patents doesn't invalidate the whole concept.
Doing business in general also requires an involuntary subsidy for the legal industry. So does divorce. So does death (wills, estate managment). So does just about everything else when you have to deal with other people. Why are you singling out software patents? The rest of your points ramblings not even worth responding to. Perhaps you should spend a bit more time thinking before you form an opinion.If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.