Slashdot Mirror
FSF: New Apache License not GPL-Compatible
__past__ continues "The new version of the Apache license will apply to all Apache projects, including the popular web server and many Java libraries like Xerces and Log4J, and making it easier to integrate Apache- and GNU-licensed code was one of the primary goals for its development. With the new license being GPL-incompatible (just like the older Apache licenses were), it is not possible to distribute programs that use libraries covered by under it and others covered by the GPL.
Apparently, the FSF does not actually consider the patent-related clauses a bad idea, let alone non-free - it is just that they impose a restriction that the GPL does not, and that makes the license automatically incompatible. It might even be that GPL Version 3 will include similar statements or at least allow them, as a message from FSF legal counsel Eben Moglen indicates. Additionally, prominent Apache hacker Roy Fielding claims that it doesn't really matter what the FSF thinks about the matter, because according to the Apache Software Foundation, derived works can just be distributed under the GPL."
Slightly concerned that we'll look back and say "Well, 2004 would've been the year Linux arrived in a big way . . . EXCEPT THAT WE TORE OURSELVES APART AT THE SEAMS."
I don't mean to panic-monger or scream that the sky is falling without due cause - but this is all starting to get a bit worrying. Open Source has enough problems right now without actively helping its opponents.
--Ryv
So since a good portion of XF86 is apparently GPL (right?)...Will they have to change the license back or be faced with dropping all of the GPL'd portion?
I know this is will be Flamebait but with all these problems maybe the GPL should change.
Is the gpl a text that says "if you change a word of this text you shall be excommunciated from the religion of Free Software, Stallman prophet ?"
This is not a signature.
One good thing about formerly GPL'ed software...companies can't retroactively go back and say that you have no right to use it...and, more than likely, the community isn't going to force you into using it (ala Longhorn circa 2008)...
They are compatible. 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.
They obviously don't care if it is distributed under the GPL, which means that they won't fight anything having to do with it being distributed in that manner, so what's the difference?
What's next? The current GPL, version 2, will not be GPL version 3 compliant?
I feel like i've been sleeping for months, all of a sudden this is all hitting the fan? What, will we all have to run some Hurd variant soon to be fully compliant?
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
1)Add some new comments to the Apache code
2)Recompile
3)...
4)Profit!!!
So that's the answer then, we just change a few comments, recompile, and call it a derived work? Surly it can't be that simple?
SCO.com uses Linux
at a first glance it sounds like a bad thing, but after rtfa it sounds pretty cool to me, it avoids problems
I believe that you can distribute a program under the GNU General Public License and a seperate Trademark license. That is what AbiSource does with AbiWord. And I don't think it restricts the freedom of the user since it is still allowed to distribute derived works. What does not seem to be compatible with the GPL is trying put any further restrictions on the user by invoking normal copyright law. By trying to use copyright law in the Apache license to restrict the rights of recipient to use an arbitrary word in the use of their derived work doesn't seem to be compatible with the GPL. (That arbitrary word would of course be Apache in this case :) Although if you have a real trademark on that word then clause
4 and 5 could be seen as just stating that the Apache License does not
grant someone the right to use the word Apache since it is a trademark.
But if that is the case then you could easily take away all confusion by
using something like the following instead of clauses 4 and 5:
This license does not grant you the right to use any of the trademarks
of the Apache Software Foundation. "Apache" is a trademark of the Apache
Software Foundation and products derived from this software may not be
called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior
written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
I think that would make sure that the new Apache License is compatible with
the GPL.
RMS is a visionary and all but he's not a God. I don't deny that he's important, but, at the end of the day, if RMS doesn't like the license I use for my software, I don't really give a fuck. And neither should Apache.
So why the hyperbolic headline?
I haven't read the new license, but so long as it allows derived works to be licensed under the GPL and still allows the source to be viewed, used and modified without fear of retribution... I don't have a problem with it.
In this case it seems that the Apache license review is just in advance of the GPL license review process. A stance on Patents is an obvious license addition and the FSF should be examining this to make a clear position public PDQ IMHO.
I hope these licenses say things like:
Software Patents are bad and we support their abolition but if they are enforced in your area these are the rules you must follow regarding this software etc..... If you don't like these rules help abolish _all_ software patents.
LS
So non-Apache products distributed under the Apache License cannot be redistributed under the GPL. This just doesn't seem like big news to me.
I wonder what they are going to think about Licensing 6.0. Is this going to be incompatible with the GPL? I've adapted some of these principles in the Gentoo-based network I admin!
We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.
Patent termination is likely a good idea in these times although it is not technically compatible with version 2 of the GNU GPL license. This does not mean the ASF is in any way evil. It will make sense if you read the new Apache license. Maybe even the GNU GPL should adapt patent litigation based termination as a clause in the future.
Banu
The problem is not one of the GPL being problematic, but rather people not thinking through what they're doing with their licensing. One of the GPL's purposes is to ensure that the code stays available to those that are interested in it as long as they are so interested. Pretty much only the GPL and LGPL do this of all the licenses out there. The other variants do this to some or no degree (MPL and APSL do some of this, but they're not as strong as the GPL is in this regard and the BSD/MIT/Artistic variants tend to not protect you from propritization of the code at all...).
In the case of the new XFree86 license, it's a stupid play on their part to try to get more recognition (there's other ways to do this, folks- not a single player in the FOSS community is claiming that they're the ones that produced XFree86 at this point in time.) and I'm sure that the Apache license is probably another example of something not being quite thought out in the ramifications department.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.)
... certain people in Redmond and Lindon are screaming with laughter and crying out of excitement with their respective goons, while celebrating the fact that the tides are turning in their favour.
Hate me!
From the FSF page linked in the article:
No falling sky here. Move along.
So, Linux spends years dominating the server market and finally starts to make it to desktop acceptance. And what happens? The rug starts to get pulled out from under us and the licensing that makes Linux distributions so *free* and *open source* start to be more restrictive. First Xfree86. Now Apache. What's next? Samba? Or maybe Gnome? Or, heaven forbid, the Linux kernel itself? Why don't we all jump on the bandwagon and use licensing to take Linux apart one app at a time. Let's shoot ourselves in the foot and give more dominance to M$.
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers
Has OSS reached a stage in the lifecycle that few siblings are big enough to branch out now?
In the early days, all everyone cared about is making OSS, and the whole model is the production of best software based on peer-review.
Nowadays, some OSS distributors are gaining enough cash reserve, support and momentum and it's sad to see other agendas come into play.
These few weeks we have seen enough incidents already.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
your point is absurd, it's a matter of perspective, fsf lists all non-gpl compatible licenses, and this happens to be one of them, they are not claiming the apache license is a bad thing for not being compatible, and its expected gpl 3 will be compatible with it.. so why bother?
Surely this isn't related to SCO and what they've stated about the GPL, is it? XFree86 and now Apache?
And of course its a tempest in a teapot for practically everyone out there in the real world.
To understand what is going on and possibly even how to approach a resolution it's important to understand the motivation for such apparent shifts.
So to those people "in the know" or those with a pretty good idea, I ask you what is the motivation for these two (XF86 and Apache) free software icons to shift away to GPL-incompatible licenses?
I'm not even going to jump to "Microsoft conspiracy theory" though the timing is pretty interesting...
That should be the real headline here. The GPL is much more of a limiting factor in Open Source software code sharing than almost any other OSS approved license. I don't mean this as flame bait, either. It's just a simple fact because of how restrictive the GPL is.
I don't hate the GPL at all, and would even consider using it on my own projects if I wanted the features that the GPL offers.
Apache's license isn't compatible with it? tough shit. find another server that is
Exactly. Linux does not hinge upon the inclusion Apache. People can download and install Apache on their linux machines if they like to run a server.
I quite like how Debian makes this destinction between free and non-free.
Many developers have strong convictions about which license they wish to use when releasing their code. However, I think that they'd often rather reuse and extend an existing library that does not use their license of choice than be burdened with re-implementing that functionality within their products or creating a new project with their license-of-choice. These kinds of incompatibilities encourage duplication of effort and discourage collaboration on many projects.
I often wonder whether this problem could be mitigated or even solved by some creative license language. I'd like to license my software in such a way that it could be reused by projects using any of a majority of the other open source licenses. Also, I'd like to modularize it so that it could take advantage of high quality software released under otherwise incompatible licenses.
The question of GPL compatibility becomes a problem only when a package contains links directly to GPL code, as seems to be the case with XFree86. If the packages are distinct enough, any "free" licence (which is the term the FSF uses for Apache's) is OK for the two to coexist in a distro.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Back when the GPL1 and later GPL2 were written, free software was a very foreign philosphy. Those carefully composed licenses have been remarkably important and comprehensive at advancing the general goals of free software. Of course other licenses like the FDL for documentation have come along to address issue that the GPL didn't do very well.
So today the idea of free software is more mainstream and many of the past threats relatively diffused. But the recent intellectual property [sic] madness has caused a new unignorable threat to emerge...patents. This is why a new revision of the GPL is needed, to more forcibly address IP issues. This is also a big issue with standards bodies, governments, other open source projects like Apache, and yes even many commercial proprietary software vendors. So perhaps this is one case where the Apache folks actually leapfrogged FSF in trying to address this modern problem.
I believe patents to be the most credible threat to free/open source. The SCO stuff is tiny in comparison as it can have no long-lasting permament effect, even if SCO is absolutely correct [grin].
And nobody cared?
Is this the beginning of market forces affecting the open source movement? Practical realities asserting themselves over floating abstractions?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
For the life of me I cant find any books on this programming language called open source. I can program in java, C++ and (forgive me) COBOL74. I would love to be able to program in open source.
This sig has been reposessed - The Repo Depo
It's only February my friend. There's plenty of time to screw it all u-... err, fix things up.
IIRC, legal documents cannot be copyrighted. Therefore you can make whatever changes you want to it, so long as you give it a different name. You would, of course, lose compatibility if you add any new restrictions.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
no, my point is, why does the GPL have to be center of the universe? who cares what the FSF says? so long as you're on their side, or you've given the rights to your code to them, you're ok. the minute you aren't on their side, you're an outcast of sorts. who made FSF king?
vodka, straight up, thank you!
When the licenses prohibit the joining to two pieces of code that have been designed to work together (and do work together) then it's pretty obvious to me that we've all missed the point as to what this is all about. Since we can't afford to "kill all the lawyers" maybe it's time to let them "cooperate" (yes they can do this) on using the methodology by which Open Source software is constructed as a model for a process to construct modular licenses that can interoperate and integrate with one another in a cooperative and constructive manner. There is alot to be learned now vis-a-vis the SCO case, and a history to be gleaned from BSD.
If Linus, and his crew, can build a kernel; then the folks at the FSF should be able to build a licensing agreement that we can all live with.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
I'm getting worried about this, start getting sloppy on the licenses, and we'll eventually have ourselves a problem.
What I mean is, if the FSF and Apache start to get a little sloppy with the licenses, it will get to a point where some lawyer will take advantage of this. Microsoft is a big company to worry about, I'm sure they are trying to find ways to shut down OpenSource projects like Linux 'cause it poses a big competition against them.
The OpenSource world is getting bigger and harder to manage, try to keep up.
(Quoted from Eben's message)
As if that would ever happen ... what did you say? Darl Mc-who?
...another headline.
The headline the editors chose is very poor. Something more along the lines of "ASL V2 Fails to Deliver GPL Compatibility" would have been more appropriate.
Like most news outlets they get better results by overglorifying headlines.
No problem in BSD land?
But how DO you get around the patent issue. The GPL is, to some extent, viral. Once any new source code interacts with GPL'd source code, the new source code becomes GPL'd. Even if the GPL'd code is part of a binary static lib, there's still some fuzziness on the use of a GPL'd API. Enough fuzziness that my company's management didn't want to risk using it.
This new Apache solution at least tries to straddle the fence; Providing the intent of OSS while simultaneously offering a "firewall" protection for commercial uses.
Sounds like chicken little to me. Heck, even the FSF doesn't have a problem with this. From the article:
Does anyone think this will keep Apache from being distributed with Linux? I doubt it. Does the presence of the BSD license somehow harm the GPL? No. Will this license bring doom upon all linux users? No.
Seriously, RTFA next time instead of gunning for FP, the articles are frequently quite enlightening.
Does this mean that the act of programmers working for free, giving away their hard work is slowly being realized as not a viable business model? Sure, we'd all love to live in a Richard Stallman world where we never had to work, where our robots did our menial tasks, and where we could simply dedicate our work for the benefit of society (no really, he said these things and it's the basis for GNU's existence)... but most of us are in the real world and giving away work doesn't make any economic sense when we have to deal with rising real estate costs, greater expenses for health care, purchasing things like food, supporting a family, etc.
2004 is the year where people realize that outsourcing of tech jobs to other countries like India, Russia, etc. doesn't just mean that the crappy work is being done by them, but that their jobs are being replaced. And 2004 will also be the year where people realize that writing open sourced projects, while a great exercise in coding skill, does absolutely nothing for them personally. The only people who benefit financially from open source are the companies who distribute those projects and who now have a team of workers essentially working at no cost. Why outsource to India when you can just browse SourceForge and find something that someone's working on for no pay at all?
The rhetoric of "selling licenses is so old sk00L... now we make our money from servicing those programs and coding customizations" has been proven false. Don't people realize that *those* tasks can easily be outsourced too? There's always some talented person in some corner of the world who's willing to work for a few dollars cheaper than you are. By giving up control over who gets to sell your product that you developed, you are essentially coding yourself into a wonderful unemployment situation.
Yes, 2004 will be a first for many things indeed.
So there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
"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."
This is what has people's feathers ruffled. Hmmm. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but...
The problem with patent revocation, in this sense, is that if someone builds a product on top of a work having an Apache 2.0 license, then goes and patents his own work, that person is in a bind.
If he finds his patented work incorporated into the original project without his consent and sues over it, that person suddenly loses the patent license to the original work. It's like putting 2 trains aimed at each other on the same track, except that one of them (the patent holders) is made out of paper.
I do not see how this revocation clause incourages the development of better software. If someone does have a novel idea that they would like to market, they cannot choose to build on anything using the Apache 2.0 license without exposing themselves to a huge legal loophole.
M
It seems they said long ago in their Halloween Documents that "The lack of singular, customer-focused management has resulted in the unwillingness to compromise between the different initiatives and is evident of the management costs in the Linux process."
In my opinion, this recent XFree86 (and now Apache) business is further proof that Microsoft was right about this. I'm not trying to bash open source as a whole--I am a big Linux fan. However, I think this problem MUST be solved if the OSS community is to move forward. We cannot go on having endless fragmentation of projects, proliferation of different (non) standards and forks and everyone-going-their-own-way. A truly usable desktop OS's bread-and-butter is its ability to have truly inter-operable (dare I say this--horizontally integrated) components.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Serisouly guys, whats the problem here? Simply modify one file and assign the GPL license to your derived works version.
What this means is it can't be linked (like a library is linked) with GPL'd code. But that's not an issue anyway, as Apache doesn't need to link to any GPL'd code. Pretty much all the libraries on a Linux system are LGPL'd (or under even less restrictive licenses like the BSD license), which can be dynamically linked to anything, including proprietary code - yep, that's right, Microsoft Word could be legally linked to an LGPL'd library.
Where it does matter is if somebody wants to add a piece of code from a GPL'd project in Apache, or a piece of Apache to a GPL project. So, this would be nice to sort out, but it doesn't have the urgency of the XFree86 issue, where all the end-user apps on the system link to the X libraries.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
This is it everybody! Grab what you can and run for the doors!
- Apache wasnt gpl compatible in the first place, but it was still popular
- Unlike the X11 licence, the changes to this licence are good, not obnoxious
- You can use Apache on GPL systems, just don't link to any gpl libaries
This licence change can't be compared to the X11 licence. Why cant you slashbots discuss things properly instead of karma whoring FUD so you can make lame 5, Funny SCO jokes! Learn the truth!This is a joke, right?
I have contributed exactly 1 (one) line of code to the Apache webserver. I distributed this code under the GPL. How can anyone who is not the owner say MY line, which is still mine, is no longer GPL? The GPL strictly prohibits taking code to any other license...
Well... Actually, I didn't write apache code, but this was just an example. But there are hunderds of people who CAN say this.
.sig: No such file or directory
And while we're at it, I really dislike the GNU/Linux crap too.
It's not that I don't agree with the thoughts behind it, but the smug people using the term to make some form of point... Well... I just hate those people.
You can statically link to the C libraries (which are GPL'd) without your exe turning into a GPL.
A lot of people here are complaining about how FSF, RMS, ESR and others just are whining about license issuses and the like. I think in fact that it's a sign of health that they are complaining, because that means they care. If no one cared, there is a possibility that we as a community could be abused over and over again by stupid, selfish or greedy people and companies. (Like the genereal public doesn't care about software patents... and look where we are now.) Sometimes I don't agree with what so called Free Software/Open Source supporters say, but it's very important to not keep our mouths shut. Criticism is a good thing (tm) - it's one of the foundations in a democracy and an open society.
So, instead of just complaing about FSF complaining, I think it's smarter to counter their arguments with better ones.
You just invalidated your entire rant.
If you use the BSD, I can relicense the whole damn thing under the GPL unless you're using the oldest version of the license that requires the advertising.
Better yet, you're confused about the licensing...
BSD licensing gives you absolute freedom- including proprietarizing the code. Nothing wrong with that. I just don't like the thought of someone taking my hard work and making money off of it- I want to reserve that privilege for myself, thank you.
GPL licensing gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with the code, so long as you give the people recieving the binaries the same rights you got, including on any enhancements you did to the code.
That's a dramatic difference from what you're claiming of things. Is it all that hard for BSD licensing proponents (the moment you labeled me a GPL fanatic, you resorted to ad-hominem, and I will not stoop to that level, thank you...) to get the fact that BSD isn't incompatible for the most part? Is it all that hard for a proponent of the BSD or similar license to figure out that there's going to be people that do not want to use your preferred license for varying reasons?
(Here's a clue for you, me bucko- I've got stuff licensed under GPL, LGPL, BSD, AND MIT/X out in the world right at the moment. I know all about all the popular Open/Free licenses and I tend to pick the one that works or makes the most sense for each piece of code I license to the rest of the world.)
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Furthermore, he complains earlier about problems with Section 3.c. There is no section 3.c There is a section 4.c which has roughly the provisions which he seems to be talking about.
I'm slightly disappointed. I usually expect better work from Eben Moglen. N.B., I have checked his references against the section numbers in the GPL and they don't refer to sections in the GPL.
Meanwhile, the others using GPL will get something back, by taking advantage of the legal framework and using it to keep the software forever free.
That's why the BSD license ends up dying. If you assume selfish agents taking maximum advantage of the BSD license (taking in, not giving anything out), you'll get nothing back and the growth of software under BSD license will stagnate. But GPL does not do so, because you can only add to the GPL codebase, not take out.
There's plenty of suitable free licenses for everybody.
I, for one, use plenty of non-GPL software in my day to day life. I enjoy GPL software, but I tend to release open source software under more permissive licenses, such as MIT. I also use (and write) a lot of (gasp) closed source software as well.
For the love of Pete, there are plenty of different software licenses out there. If you don't like the terms of a given license, don't use the software. If apache changes their terms because they think it makes them less likely to be sued, good for them. The GPL isn't the One True License, it's just one of the more restrictive ones that still claims to be "free". News flash: you can run software with virtually any license as long as you agree to the conditions. If some GPL-zealot distribution decides not to include Apache because of this, that's their problem.
F- the GPL. I need to write an updated version of this that follows a more legally friendly format, but:
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/ossal/
The GPL is the worst thing to happen to software development and stability in the last 20 years.
-- Sean Chittenden
...till the projects simply branch.
From earlier versions covered strictly under GNU (which is non-revokable once given version is released), a GNU "development offspring" should appear, and for example next to non-GNU XFree86 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, something like XFree86 4.4g, 4.5g, 4.6g will be created - by a team of independent developers who don't agree to taking the freedom away and write it their own way.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
The original patent clause was way too broad and upset a lot of people, but I thought the final one had the debian folk happy, and the FSF giving it a nod. Maybe we were wrong; maybe it just makes for good controversy. See the licensing mail archive.
There have always been incompatibilities between Apache and GPL; the Apache stance is that Java LGPL libraries cannot be used from Apache code, except via a non-LGPL API (such as JDBC). This complicates things, but is something we have come to live with.
I don't get the anti-RMS comments.
/. story IMO. The FSF themselves said there's nothing wrong with the patent clause, it's just incompatible with the GPL today. A statement of fact.
How many SCO's will we go through before we get it: LEGAL NITPICKING MATTERS A LOT.
The most important thing on a piece of code today is the license. Not the algorithms, not how "cool" the author is. That's what makes or break any piece of "intellectual proeprty". That's what protects our open source from the bigco's of the world.
Sure, we love Linus because he's a "best tool for the job" kinda guy, and apolitical, like many of us. But he's not focusing on the legal issues.
I'm damn thankful that the FSF goes over these licenses in excruciating, anal-retentive detail. That's why I send them my $120+ every year. Because when Apache, or LINUX (hello SCO), or any other open source project gets to court (and it will happen, SCO is just the start), the lawyer on the other side will make RMS look like Linus.
It bugs me that all these projects insist on inventing their own licenses. Why not just use the BSD license with a trademark restrictions? But if the FSF says it's GPL compatible, then I know I can count on AT LEAST what the GPL offers. I know the GPL pretty well, I first saw more than a decade ago. I use Apache on many servers but honestly I haven't read the license from start to finish.
This particular statement from the FSF is not "forcing" anything. It's not even really newsworthy: the FSF is just stating that the MOST POPULAR and most thoroughly examined GPL has some conflicts with the relatively new ASF license. It's not "open source infighting". It's not even worth a
So guys, get over it. You can't code your way out of the web of IP laws in this country using Perl. You need carefully crafted and thoroughly peer-reviewed licenses. You can't be "casual" about licenses or contracts and other legal documents.
If the Apache Foundation indeed is of the opinion that Apache Licensed code may be distributed under the GPL, maybe they could just make things easier for everyone and distribute everything explicitly under both their new license and the GPL.
I remember we were talking about something similar on the LDP a while ago when there was a big flap about the FDL vs. other documentation licenses. In fact, it's even simpler than you say: a "trivially derivative work" (ie, the exact same work) still counts as a derivative work. So, you can receive apache under the Apache license and then redistribute the same ("trivially derivative") package under the GPL.
All's true that is mistrusted
... because the parent is an A1 douchebag.
Apache was never compatible with the GPL. In the latest version of the Apache license, they address software patents in a way that adds a restriction that the GPL is not compatible with. Because the FSF would like similar protection from software patents, it is VERY likely that version 3 of the GPL will contain a similar clause.
So, there was no shift away from the GPL, and there is no MS conspiracy. Yet you spout off ridiculous shit when you don't even have the basic facts.
Like I said, you are an A1 douchebag, but not as much of a douchebag as the moron who modded you up.
... that set stricter rules on their licenses? So far we've seen Mozilla's Firefox adopt a stance that does not allow unofficial people to use their artwork at all. Unofficial Firefox builds still must use Firebird artowork and they cannot call themselves Firefox. XFree86 has just adopted their new policy.. and now Apache. Well, this ought to be fun.
is that when/if projects like XFree86 and Apache stop providing their software for free, someone will jump in and provide a substitute service for free and more people will use that product instead. Let's face it. A gigantic reason people use XFree86 and Apache are because they are free. We could use Gimp as an example. I would much rather run Adobe Photoshop at home but the fact the Gimp is free makes up for any lack of performance. Of course, there are other programs like OpenOffice for windows, that I would much rather use than a bloated microsoft office just to be able to type up a paper. So not only is OpenOffice free, it is a better product for me. However, if things were the other way around; if microsoft word were free and OpenOffice was not, i would use word. What I am trying to say is that whether a free program is inferior or not, we are more likely to use it than a non-free program. Apache and XFree86 have literally had years and years of beta testing by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. If they begin to charge for their program. Someone somewhere will see the opportunity and create a substitute service (although it may perhaps be temporarily inferior) for free and people will begin using, hacking, and therefore improving it.
In addition to all this, there is another important point to make. Microsoft and other companies that charge insane amounts for software, capitalize on the ignorance of users by providing an easy-to-use service with telephone tech support and by providing a product that "gets us by." The average Linux/BSD et. al. user has an advantage because s/he can say "stuff it" to a company who decides to charge and make a transition to another program that make require more savvy user, or require additional tweaking, or have less tech support but makes free software. We need not be troubled, free software will prevail in our world.
beanthemagictomato
instead of LINUX IS NOT GNU
you will hear APACHE IS NOT GNU
and it will make sense.
ever try to really READ the GPL??(or the apache license for that matter...) its a wonderful piece of work, but hot damn is it ever complex, and full of lawyer-speak. for my own projects, i have taken to using license based off the zlib license. its short, sweet, and so much easier to understand.
besides, i dont want to exclude commercial interest in my work, i just want to make it clear that it was ME who wrote it.
and by the way, several other versions of the apache license are listed as incompatible too.
honestly, i think this is a non-problem that people are making too big a deal about. we can still all use apache for free, for home AND business.
how bout this for an OS license:
this software is copyright (whoever) (whenever)
it may redistributed by any medium, provided:
-all changes are clearly labelled
-the original author(s) are credited as the creators of the original code.
-if this code is used as part of a commercial product, any modification of a source code file which was an original part of this software's source code must be made available under this license.
so then we can use it commercially, but actual changes or improvements to the given software ITself are still open source. but like if they use this as a part of a commercial product they only need to release the changes they made to this for their use, not their whole application.
i dunno, i like it...
-Ted
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
nobody ever jumps to the obvious conclusion that the real problem is with the freaking GPL. I dont understand. I mentioned this in another thread and got modded down as Flamebait for daring to disparage the great and wonderful GPL.
Come on - why are people so attached to such a pain in the ass licenses? Do any of you have jobs? Haven't you noticed that you basically can't use GPL'd code in a business environment?
The BSD, MIT, Apache, etc... licenses are all vastly superior. You're going to see more and more "not compatible with the GPL!" bullshit.
I say: tough shit.
From the Gnu website:
"Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program."
Except for, as I pointed out elsewhere, the C libraries. (which seems to have a special exemption?)
There's no conscious decision here. If I write a program utilizing a GPL'd binary lib, the above lines state that I've just written a GPL'd program. So long as I link to the program through a third party communications system (pipes, etc), then it's OK.
Right on, brother. Wish I had some mod points.
GPL _is_ the problem. I don't understand this rabid fanaticism people have over the GPL. _Your_ code will always be free if you use a different licenses, e.g. BSD. This is simply true. What do you care if someone modifies it and keeps the _changes_ they make? It's not going to invalidate your code and make it proprietary.
With BSD, GPL and LGPL, why do we need any others? Those three seem to have all the open-source bases covered...
</ignorant>
*prepares for a karma-bashing*
I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
third time's the charm, right?
i wanted to use a library in some code recently. my code gets released under the bsd. the library under gpl. i couldn't use the library. tough shit for me. what did i do? found another library.
i guess that's the price i pay for using a bsd license though, right?
vodka, straight up, thank you!
Given the insanity of many patents lately, with people who clearly didn't have an original idea but somehow got the PTO to give them a patent on prior art or clearly obvious "inventions", a patent might also be looked at as much as protection from someone coming around and later patenting your code as the evil it has become lately. If some good soul patents something and makes that patent available freely to the open source community, they would seem to be doing a good thing, in protecting all of us from some idiot who might otherwise patent the same thing and claim ownership unless someone with deep pockets can beat him in court (and there's always a chance that a jury is too dumb to understand the issues). If free use for a patent is given, why would that have to be a bad thing? A patent says I own it. Just as I might be the author and copyright holder of code that I can make available to the open source community, why should someone not be able to do the same thing with a patent?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
i don't see why people care more now, especially because many slashdot readers are against software patents anyhow
when you are going to realize that money is a 1st, freedom is last. Say goodbye to free stuff. Your greed did this, oh well, now you suffer...
This is just way too sweet! OK, let's see all these distros drop Apache 2.0 (well, those that actually included 2.0)!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
All i can say in response is "give this Eben Moglin guy a knighthood!" A white hat legal eagle.
If free use for a patent is given, why would that have to be a bad thing? A patent says I own it.
Precisely because of what I quoted in bold. You own it. For the duration of the patent, you can do whatever you want with it.
Including, unfortunately, letting everyone use if for free for the first 15 years, then charging once it becomes a ubiquitous standard, such as happened with GIFs.
You can also impose any terms of distribution you want, which IMO causes a serious legal dilemma in this case - Once you release code under the GPL, it stays that way. You can "undo" it for future releases, but whatever you already GPL'd stays that way forever. However... If you release a program under the GPL, which makes use of a patented techniques, you also have the right, at any time, to say "oh, just kidding, you can't use that without paying me royalties". Such an action effectively gives people an "out" even long after they've committed themselves (and possibly millions of others have as well) to using that code in a GPL'd project.
IMO, that would effectively mean the end of the GPL. People use it because it lets them feel reasonably safe about using GPL'd code, as long as they also want to share their results with the world. If, suddenly, the GPL status of any given blob of code could vanish overnight... Well, even if the open source community chose to ignore the law, not a company on the planet would ever touch anything GPL'd again.
It seems to me that a reasonable relaxation in the GPL would be to permit GPL code to link with non-GPL code that qualifies as "free," including old-style BSD (and new XFree86) as well as new Apache. It will be interesting to see if Version 3 changes anything here. (It's a delicate balance between encouraging all software to be free as free as GPL software and encouraging use of existing quality free/open software.)
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
Agreed. The LGPL is much more reasonable, as is the ASL, even if its acronym sounds like an AOLuser's IRC greeting.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
But I claim that I own the patent rights already. Either I'm right (and the Apache provision doesn't matter, since losing C's patent license is meaningless because I own the rights myself), or I'm wrong, and this sentence of the GPL is dead-on:
Why incompatible?
That if they make extentions to the IP, they have to give me rights to the same.
Let me rephrase my comment...
I just don't like the thought of someone taking my hard work and claiming it as their own work or keeping anything they might add to my work to themseleves. I shared it, they need to share as well.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
What sort of word is "sphexishly"? I can't find it in any online dictionary, and a straight Google search only finds 2 distinct occurrences, neither of which makes clear its meaning.
Just curious.
Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
MY OH MY how what's "OK" and what's not "OK" in Opne Source change when it's one of the Crown Jewels! Just so very funny how thr rabid types are now examining their finger nails while say "Oh, it's not really that much of a proble, it's only a weak patent clause... Well, guys, it is a patent, and it is not GPL... Wonder what RMS has to say about this (if he can stop picking the fleas out of his beard for a few moments)!
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I agree with the parent except the part about not caring about Linux arriving. Woah! That just seems very myopic to me.
If a tree falls and there's no one around to hear it... yada yada yada.
Does software exist if no one uses it? How can one argue that adoption of Linux hasn't been (and won't continue to be) a huge boon to free software?
I care about Linux arriving because:
- my biz customers don't care about free software, but do care about reliability of software that runs on the hardware they buy.
- Linux arriving makes it easier to convince my clients that my recommendations have merit and that the OS will be supported.
- Having scored with a free OS some barriers are lowered to convincing my clients that free alternatives to other packages are viable. It gets the foot in the door for other free software.
Perhaps I am incorrect but I have always felt that the more free software is used the better the chances of the free software movement's continued existence.
If nothing else I think you should care to the extent that Linux can be a great tool to further the free software movement.
I'm open to being convinced that Linux arriving isn't extremely valuable to the free software movement.
There is no safe sig.
...see, the problem is that changing the GPL requires *every* contributor to change the license. It is not relicensable any one company (like Apache) nor does it allow relicensing like BSD (like XFree86 project).
The FSF can change a lot by releasing a new GPL, to the degree that people use "GPL 2.0 or higher" or such, but I do not. I don't like the fact that the FSF can relicence it any way they want. First they release 3.0, I evaluate it, and if I approve I release my code under that licence, not the other way around.
And by the very same limitations at work here, would also probably make the GPL 3.0 incompatible with GPL 2.0 (only) code. I needn't tell you how big a bitch that would be, so the results better be worth it.
So yes, the GPL is much more of a "holy scripture" than any of the other competing licences. It's a lot more "set in stone" than any other. It's not something that can be changed at a whim, even the whim of RMS.
What it boils down to is that the GPL may not be perfect. Perhaps the GPL should have had some more restrictions (like, against patents) or less restrictions (to allow crediting). But it is "right enough" that any new license that is deliberately non-compatible, will catch a lot of flak for it.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Well, Roxen has its GPL'ed webserver, and it's a very good one.
I like Apache and everything, but it's good to know there are alternatives.
This means that you also can legitimately have everyone and his dog claim the work as part of their own and pretty much get away with it. When you release to the Public Domain, you're disowning the code in question.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
nt
I don't try to be right, I just try to make people think
No, it's more like the subject line in its importance. The fact that we have a plethora of OS developers spitting kittens about which tpe of license to use will in fact lead to more project variants. The strongest and best will live through the winnowing process, and make the entire OS/FSF movement even stronger.
I'm more encouraged by this than by the by the stupid advertising IBM throws up, which teaches about Linux to potential users. (May you marketing drones dance on the suns surface.)
Putting on your boxing gloves men, let's dance!
Sweet Jesus, have you ever read the GPL? More to the point, have you tried reading any document purporting to be a software use license? The GPL is a beacon of simplicity. Yes, we do in fact need the very slight complexity introduced by documents like the GPL in order for the meaning to be clear. For example, where is "source code" defined in the first draft of your license? It could be successfully argued that a modified version of your program, compiled, then decompiled, then run through an obfuscator would constitute compliance with your license. The GPL includes a simple definition: Source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A second sentence in that paragraph clarifies that we're talking about the whole thing, not just diffs -- and it means Makefiles, too. (Would you like to try compiling the Linux kernel without Makefiles?) The third sentence in that paragraph clarifies that you don't need to provide something which you may not be able to provide -- source code for "anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of the operating system on which the executable runs" (for example, Vim for MS Windows). Going back to your license, it's not even clear to me that it's required to distribute source code to the program, not even for derived works. Basically, the entire thirteen-clause document is like this. It states what is required, in a nutshell, and then clarifies what was said so that it is as precise as possible. Think of legal matters the same as you think of programming. You can't just tell the computer, "Put a window on the screen." You have to tell it where, and what it's supposed to contain, and at lower levels (xlibs, MFC, or whatever) what a window is, how to draw it, and so on. The main problem is that language is horribly imprecise, especially for purposes like these. This is why licenses and contracts tend to start out with at least a paragraph or two defining what certain terms, as used in the document, will mean. I'm not trying to be grouchy or come across as condescending, but legal matters do take a suprising amount of work to get right. Don't misunderstand me, though, IANAL or an apologist for one.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
Good God, I'm sorry about the formatting on that. LiveJournal rots the brain. Those auto-linebreaks are evil, and I should have previewed.
Sweet Jesus, have you ever read the GPL? More to the point, have you tried reading any document purporting to be a software use license? The GPL is a beacon of simplicity.
Yes, we do in fact need the very slight complexity introduced by documents like the GPL in order for the meaning to be clear. For example, where is "source code" defined in the first draft of your license? It could be successfully argued that a modified version of your program, compiled, then decompiled, then run through an obfuscator would constitute compliance with your license. The GPL includes a simple definition: Source code is "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it". A second sentence in that paragraph clarifies that we're talking about the whole thing, not just diffs -- and it means Makefiles, too. (Would you like to try compiling the Linux kernel without Makefiles?) The third sentence in that paragraph clarifies that you don't need to provide something which you may not be able to provide -- source code for "anything that is normally distributed... with the major components... of the operating system on which the executable runs" (for example, Vim for MS Windows).
Going back to your license, it's not even clear to me that it's required to distribute source code to the program, not even for derived works.
Basically, the entire thirteen-clause document is like this. It states what is required, in a nutshell, and then clarifies what was said so that it is as precise as possible.
Think of legal matters the same as you think of programming. You can't just tell the computer, "Put a window on the screen." You have to tell it where, and what it's supposed to contain, and at lower levels (xlibs, MFC, or whatever) what a window is, how to draw it, and so on. The main problem is that language is horribly imprecise, especially for purposes like these. This is why licenses and contracts tend to start out with at least a paragraph or two defining what certain terms, as used in the document, will mean.
I'm not trying to be grouchy or come across as condescending, but legal matters do take a suprising amount of work to get right. Don't misunderstand me, though, IANAL or an apologist for one.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
Someone please tell me why everything should be "GPL compatible"??
The XFree86 people have been working with RMS. It's not the end of the world yet. My understanding is that the license changes only affect the XFree86 server code. The understand that they can't change the license on the X libraries willy-nilly. And we only link against the X library code so all is well.
"- all changes are clearly labelled"
This would require someone using the source code to provide a HUGE list of updates. Where should this be clearly labelled? In the documentation? In the splash screen? In the About-box?
What if there were several companies providing changes to the original source code. Where would the end be? After 10 years, how many changes would be listed?
"-the original author(s) are credited as the creators of the original code"
Why only the original? What if someone contributed something that was more than a 100% of the original contribution? If the original contributors were credited, shouldn't them? And where should that be presented?
"-if this code is used as part of a commercial product, any modification of a source code file which was an original part of this software's source code must be made available under this license."
Eh.. So you are using the original source files as the judgement of modification? So if someone copies the source files completely, and writes around all your problems in other source files without distributing changes, then that is better than someone changing your source files without distributing the changes?
The thing is, a license is complicated if it tries to do something other than give away all rights..
GPL or Copyleft gives away most rights, but not all, and tries to make sure that the work done by the original contributors is kept open without ending up being used in closed source projects without the copyright holder being asked about it. I find that to be perfectly fine.
The problem is that you can't write something really simple in legalese. All the possible problems, of which I've mentioned only a few, have to be taken into account, or you might end up in a lawsuit not going your way, sooner or later.
The XFree86 license change was (and is) a big deal because of thousands of GPL'd programs that currently link with xlibs that would have to be removed from distributions which want to use newer versions of XFree86.
Now, by slashdot editor "logic", the fact that one license change is an issue, that means all license changes (or non changes) are issues that deserve long, confusing, misleading discussion. Hence a story on the non-issue of the Apache license.
Including, unfortunately, letting everyone use if for free for the first 15 years, then charging once it becomes a ubiquitous standard, such as happened with GIFs. [...] You can "undo" it for future releases, but whatever you already GPL'd stays that way forever.
Licensing is a form of contract. It works the same way for patents as for copyrights. If you explicitly allow a patent to be used for free under certain conditions, you can no more undo that than you can undo specifically allowing a copyright to be used for free.
The compression algorithm for GIFs never was offered for free in the first place. It just took the owner a long time to complain about its use.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Better to fix the problem now, than to wait until an Open Source company gets 'owned' (possibly quit literally) by another, much less scrupulous company taking advantage of the bugs that Eben has noted.
Not only is he not dissing section 5 outright, but he's suggesting that the approach taken may be folded into future versions of the GPL. It's pretty hard to have a more friendly 'disagreement' than that.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The old Apache license (Version 1.1) had an "obnoxious advertising clause", of the very same type that XFree has now added, and that the old BSD licenses had.
This has now been removed.
Now this patent clause has been added, hence the license is still GPL-incompatible. But it is still far less GPL-incompatible than the old license.
And if the next GPL version includes an anti-SW-patent clause, they may very well become compatible.
So stop bitching, people!
The Apache license is now more free than ever before. In fact, it may even be more free than the GPL itself, since the GPL does not give any protection against SW patents.
If I want to distribute a derived work made partially from Apache software under the Apache license version 2, and partially from Foobarco's software under the GPL version 2, the fact that Roy Fielding (or even the Apache Foudnation) is OK with it does NOT solve the problem. Distributing the derived work under the Apache license terms is a violation of the GPL, and Foobarco would have grounds for action.
They said that it was MORE compatible in the release of the new license. And if you look at the FSF page, none of the Apache licenses are compatible.
well that's depressing. so what are you saying, that we have to all speak lawyer if we wanna write open source code, and should watch our back at all times? maybe this is a bad time to try and talk about the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter". ok, so maybe my idea is crap, but wouldnt it be NICE if that was all we had to say for people to respect each other's rights? that was my original point, i wasnt trying to suggest that all the lawyers who worked on the gpl and so forth were idiots, i was saying, "wouldn't it be nice" if we didnt have to be so specific, if we could trust each other for once. there are too many people in the USA who are out to do nothing other than screw over their fellow citizens, its pointless, its stupid, and it inhibits our progress to have laws like this that have to be taken literally and be absolute like this. but the first time i write something GPL'd, and then get sued when microsoft tries to patet MY work, ill prolly thank the FSF for writing the GPL so strong like they did. no matter how hard the world tries, i refuse to give up my altruism and the basic belief that people are innately good. yeh maybe that makes me ignorant.. but i dont give a hoot.... -ted
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
If Apache doesn't have a problem with their software being distributed under the terms of the GPL, why don't they just dual-license it like everyone else does? That would make everything clear.
yeh i get the point...i suck...move on... once again with the IANAL either... i was trying to make a point that it sucks the we have to protect ourselves from our own generousity..... i wasnt saying i hated the gpl or anything, i was saying i wish we didnt need it.... -ted
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
I read the patent clause. It contains a poison pill. You agree to grant a license to your patents when you contribute software. If you later file a suit claiming infringement, you lost your patent license.
Technically it's an "additional restriction" not bpermitted by the GPL. But it's an important and useful additional restriction that promotes the freedom of the code.
It may be GPL-incompatible, but it's arguably better than the GPL.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
and that is to change the GPL, after all it isnt exactly the alpha and the omega or anything.
According to the FSF people and many other GNU believers, the GPL is not a contract; just a license. Which, BTW, would make it revocable to the extent allowed by common law in the USA.
I've always felt that the GPL was too restrctive, and could achieve it's same goals without being as fanatical as it seems to be; could the XFree86 and Apache license conflicts be a sign of a trend that might indicate the GPL needs to bend a bit to avoid becoming more part of the problem, than the solution?
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Re: the BSD/MIT/Artistic variants tend to not protect you from propritization of the code at all...).
Wrong. They certainly do. My BSD-licensed code is mine and open to the world no matter what more-proprietary license you use on a derivative in which your work is under your license, like the (L)GPL. But unlike the (L)GPL, they don't have the proprietary feature of forbiding you to use the code unless you put YOUR OWN work under the license of your choice.
They don't require that in exchange for deriving from a work, that you cross-license your own work back to them (and anyone else), an exchange which copyright law considers a financial one. (See the definitions section.)
The reason so many people like the GPL is BECAUSE it is so proprietary, giving you the right to use OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK (in derivatives). It's just not quite as obvious that it's no different in basic concept than if derivation required payment of a cash license fee (to permit publishing of the derivative). The GPL doesn't keep a work free any more than most other OSS licenses; it just has the proprietary feature of keeping other people from using the work without paying a fee in the form of a GPL cross-licensing arrangement.
I've been using Linux since my first Slackware disk in 1994 or 1995. But version 2.0 of the Apache license, alone or in conjunction with Evan Moglen's assertion that FSF is going to revise the GPL to deal with patents, is enough to keep me from ever wanting to touch another Linux distribution.
First, exactly what harm has free software, and specifically, GPL-ed software, ever seen from software patents? Yes, I am aware of the Eolas decision against Microsoft, but has the owner of that patent given any hint of being interested in suing the writers or distributors of any GPL-ed software for money? Yes, I know about the GIF patent, but was anyone distributing or using free software actually sued over that patent? To my knowledge, the patent owner only demanded that the patent not be used in free products wihtout payment of a royalty.
Second, if you look at the damages available to a patent owner as compared to that of a copyright owner, you will see that many of the draconian remedies and huge statutory minimum damages available under copyright law just aren't available under patent law. In most instances, I would imagine that a patent holder would simply demand that the patented feature be taken out of the GPL-ed product until the patent expired. There would be very little incentive, if any, to go after ordinary users.
But more importantly, the Apache license as written seems to guarantee that Apache would act as a magnet for stolen intellectual property. Almost anyone with an axe to grind against some company (the fact that the company has software patents would likely be enough) and knowledge that GPL-ed products or Apache-licensed products are used in that company would be motivated to try to incorporate those patents into a code contribution as a matter of spite. Thus, the "free" software product with the patent license revocation clause would almost certainly become littered with stolen IP and be vulnerable to attack from many fronts.
Even worse, I understand that at least one company (i.e., IBM and possibly others) that supports free software selectively releases their software patents for use with GPL-ed software that they contribute, when the contribution would otherwise be covered by their own patent. How much longer do you think this company would be willing to contribute to free software if it could not enforce its other patents against someone who is maliciously stealing IP from the company?
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in using or recommending Apache to anyone if the version 2.0 license is in effect. And if Evan Moglen allows FSF to incorporate an "in terrorem"-like clause concerning software patents into the GPL, then I will lose a great deal of respect for him as a practical attorney. I think clauses like this will increase the need for attorneys to study software licenses at companies, thereby increasing the cost of free software. And the term itself will inhibit both the adoption and advancement of free software.
Serve Gonk.
Not so. Read the License. The Patent provision is only binding on the contributor's patents (i.e., if you own patents that will be necessarily infringed by your contributions to Apache, then you automatically grant a patent license for use in Apache (and derivative works, I assume) ). If the contributor then sues Apache for patent claims, then the license revokes their license to use the software.
It is a reach to suggest that someone stealing IP from a company and contributing it to Apache would bind that company to accept that their IP has been released. Furthermore, the license provision is only triggered by litigation against Apache, and it is unlikely that a company whose IP has stolen (except for a certain desperate Utah-based company) would start right off the bat with litigation.
Actually isn't the quote to give up an "essential liberty" for a "little temporary safety"? That puts a whole different slant on your comparison as I wouldn't exactly say that the security offered by the GPL is temporary or little. And I guess the people who use the GPL consider allowing companies to close source your work to be a very bad thing rather than an essential liberty (otherwise they wouldn't choose the GPL in the first place). And also it's not like they are forcing any one else who does consider allowing companies to close source your work an "essential liberty" to give it up (which is different from the circumstances which Franklin was probably talking about where people in fear force through laws that restrict the freedom of everyone whether they agree with the new laws or not. A citizen can't be selective about what laws they obey or not but you can choose not to have anything to do with the GPL).
Uh...
I must be missing something. Once GPLd, always GPLd, correct? That's a pretty broad, blanketing effect. If I patent some software, then GPL any portion of it, I just GPLd my patent, so sorry for my luck.
If someone GPLs something already covered under someone else's patent, then that software is illegal, because it wasn't their work to release under the GPL in the first place. It's not the community who'll pay for it, it's the offender, because once it's out, it's out, there's nothing you can do about it, especially since it's the true author of that work who retains copyright. Or, in this case, he who released it claiming someone else's copyright. Double-whammy for He Who Violates, huh?
I don't see how the patent protection is even needed in these cases, as those 3rd parties can't possibly be considered liable for an illegal act committed by a single individual (or other entity), but instead expect all individuals to act in good faith. That's what it boils down to - many single entities, supposedly acting in good faith. Any FS/OSS project accepting that contribution has to also accept that entity's word that it is their work, under their copyright. If that word is misrepresented, that's fraud, and the OSS project in question is just as much a victim as the original owner of the work. Triple-whammy.
IANAL, but when I contribute, I do it the right way, by giving my own work. When others give of themselves, I expect the same. If I were lied to, I was lied to, and I would never ever accept another contribution from that person again. In addition, all of that person's contributions would have to be pulled from any of my projects. That gets to be a daunting prospect for projects like Apache! But, the only one who belongs in court is He Who Violated (tm).
I hope I just made sense.
You are all fartheads.
If you could read a bit better and were able to take a moment away from consumption of the cornucopia of goods and services of capitalism, like your Britney Spears look-a-like porn video, you might actually notice that everything you are assuming about the "fighting" amongst "communist" open source programmers is actually completely wrong.
I keep seeing comments in this comment about the GPL being fanatical and religion-like.
What's funny is that the new apache license is EVEN MORE FANATICAL as a free-software license than the GPL is. That is, in fact, WHY it is incompatible with the GPL-- it is so fanatical about ensuring software's "Free"-ness that its manner of enforcing the software's "Free"-ness qualifies as a "restriction" under the GPL.
This seems to go very well with the spirit of the GPL.
The GPL says you are allowed to use this code, provided you dont try to restrict anyone else's use of this code or contributions you make to this code.
This new Apache License says you are allowed to use these patents, provided you dont try to restrict anyone else's use of these patents.
I dont see the incompatability here. It seems just to be saying "This is GPLd(ish) code, and you can't get around the GPL(ish) by having patents. We thought that was obvious, but their seemed to be some confusion so here it is in plain english"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
But you fail to grasp the difference between commercial and propriatary. Ximian Gnome is a commercial program. It is free. Many freeware Windows apps a propriatary programs. They are non-free.
Look out!
And what exactly is stopping you from doind this today? HINT: Mail::Sender module's man page:
*Perl itself may be copied only under the terms of either the Artistic License or the GNU General Public License, which means that the effective license of Mail::Sender is either the Artistic License with the added restriction or the GPL with said restriction. This is a restriction on use, mind you, which means that the Mail::Sender's license is an EULA, so it's even much more than what you are complaining about. Now, you might say that spamming is illegal anyway, or if you know Jenda that he himself doesn't give a flying fuck about spamming and this is why this very module was born in the first place, but still this is a clear example that what you imply is impossible, is in fact not only possible, but also being used for years.
Of course I might have failed to understand your real concerns, in which case please clarify what is your real problem with the GNU General Public License. (Of course I assume you have read it.)
Speaking about the advertising clause of original BSD-style licenses, I believe that changing the GPL to make them GPL-compatible would be unwise at least. That would cause the same problems as invariant sections in works covered by GNU FDL, while targetting a much less important issue. I highly urge you to consider this.
Apache : most used and succesfull linux server software
XFree86 : most used and succesfull linux desktop software
Apparently the Linux kernel code by Linus Torvalds cannot be touched anymore. So the evil masters move along and try to get these two projects into troubled waters, and thus still might nail the linux rise. Remember that Darl McBride already today failed miserably.
I would say, what we have here is the latest attack to nail Linux and Open Source. Lets hope its the last one.
Robert
No Apache license has ever been GPL compartible.
Just check the FSF page. It applies only to the flow of code and derivative works not to the use of the software.
So the Apache guys can not use GPL code in their project because of the license.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
This is totally ridiculous. Just put it all into good old PUBLIC DOMAIN and stop bickering over semantics. Ego-driven drivel.
For us in the FOSS community to finally ditch those FSF lunatics and their insanely restrictive GPL.
Am I joking? No, not really. Everyone else seems to be able to play nicely together. Linus was never that keen on the GPL, he only GPLd the kernel because A) he didn't really mind either way and B) RMS wouldn't have it any other way. But GNU needs Linux a lot more than Linux needs GNU.
2004 might be the year that we see forking between GPL and non-GPL version of the same code base. Or if GNU/Linux based distros want to cut off their noses to spite their faces, I'm sure BSD developers will be delighted to step into the breach and get the job done without the skrieking and tantrums.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If the Apache copyright holders think that the software can be distributed under the GPL, they should make this explicit in the copying conditions.
'This is free software; you may distribute it according to the Apache Software License version 2 or later, or (at your option) the GNU General Public License version 2 or later.'
Problem solved.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
... a non-article?
I strongly believe you are misreading the license.
You say:
The relevant terms of the license are as follows:
and:
I am not asserting that someone stealing IP from a company and contributing it to Apache binds that company to accept that their IP has been released. But presumably, some company (let's call it "Generous Co.") will legitimately release IP into Apache and license at least one of its patents under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license, just as I believe IBM asserts they consider releasing certain of its patents as it contributes to Linux.
Then, your company (let's call it "YourCo") has a falling out with an employee who happens later to contribute to Apache 2.0 and is aware of your company's patent portfolio. That employee then puts YourCo's patent IP into Apache completely separately and independently of the IP legitimately licensed by Generous Co., after he is fired for, let's say, malfeasance.
Now, YourCo, as a legal entity or individual exercising permissions granted by the Apache license, considers instituting patent litigation against the former employee. Read the last sentence of paragraph no. 3 of the Apache 2.0 license. YourCo is a user of Apache, and is instituting patent litigation against its former employee (i.e., "any entity"), alleging that Apache or the contribution incorporated into the work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement. What happens? Any patent licenses granted to YourCo under the Apache 2.0 license, including Generous Co.'s license, are terminated on the date the litigation is filed. Thus, YourCo can no longer use Apache.
That sounds like an excellent reason for a company to reject the use of Apache and the Apache license. I know I am going to keep away from this program from now on, and I applaud the OpenBSD maintainer for doing so as well, assuming that the other comments to this article are correct.
Legal bickering is the business of the RIAA and SCO.
Why the hell are open-source software groups getting into this? Perhaps we have been infiltrated with evil, phb M$, SCO, etc agents...
--
I wish to quote a famous saying:
"You idiot! Shazbot!"
I may be a bit naive, but unless there are onerous conditions to a license, what difference does it make if open source licenses are not "compatible with the GPL"? Open source software is released under several different types of licenses, such as BSD, Apache, GPL, Perl, etc., each with it's own peculiarities. A distribution is a collection of different programs that hopefully play nice together. A Linux distribution is essentially a kernel released under a GPL license with a bunch of other stuff. A *BSD distribution is essentially a kernel released under a BSD license with a bunch of other stuff. In both of these cases the "bunch of other stuff" is pretty much the same stuff, all released under a variety of licenses. There are purist distributions that won't include stuff with certain types licenses either due to some sort of moral issue or due to perceived onerous licensing requirements, such as the new XFree86 license. To the user these different license types don't make any difference, as long as they are open source. These licensing differences do make a difference to anybody who wishes to distribute software based on an open source sofware because the developers have to actually read and heed the license and they may not be able to distribute the code as they would want to. Guess what, the owner of the copyright of the code has the right to place pretty much any restrictions on it's distribution as he wishes.
Yes, it would be much simpler for all open source sofware to use the same license; just as it would be much simpler for all auto manufacturers to put headlight and windshield wiper switches in the same places. The user does not care what software licenses are used any more than he cares where the headlight switches are placed as long as they both work for him.
I'm seeing a lot of "make it GPL compatible or we will fork your project" ramblings going on at the moment.
All things considered, that's undestandable, but... DO ME A FAVOUR! If you are really against the fact that the Apache license isn't GPL compatible, think about this... it never has been! BSD... in many of it's incarnations, incompatible. Do a bit of research, many of your favourite pieces of software are not license-compatible with the GPL... get over it.
Just because something is not GPL compatible does not make it evil. This idiotic groupthink is what drove me away from Linux to begin with.
License changes may be the hype of the new year. I was wondering what future Linux boxes might look like and came up with this:
http://privat.hgesser.com/boxen/
(I know, the Apache license change isn't about mentioning the product in bundles, but maybe we'll see more XFree-alike stuff.)
The entire article and more or less all the high-mod'ed postings seems to be based on a weird premise: That reproducing and imposing an extra set of license terms is not a "further restriction" (clause 6). Reproducing an extra set of license terms is a "further restriction".
...) However, this statement says *an appropriate copyright*, not *a specific copyright and disclaimer as limited by a separate extra license*, which becomes seriously noticable when there are many of these.
From my experience working with *BSD and seeing proprietary derivates done, this can actually be a major hassle. It is a lot of work to just extract the individual licenses for reproduction, and it is even more work to run those licenses through the lawyers to check that they are OK etc.
In practice, this may easily run in the thousands of dollars. Definately noticable, and having to do this definately counts as a "further restriction."
I've seen the standard defense of the people that like to grap code under other licenses and slam it together with GPLed code: This is not a restriction due to section 1 of the GPL (... publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty
The only reason I can see that the FSF does not count it as one is that they actually do not have the experience working with these licenses in a carefully controlled manner. This experience generally comes from being somehow involved with proprietary derivates of free software - e.g, through being involved on the development side of *BSD (where we see proprietary derivates as a GOOD thing, as we get a lot of good code back from proprietary derivates. We actually have to do work to keep the number of variants of the BSD/MIT style licenses down, because it becomes onerous for derivates to reproduce them all.)
Also, the FSF is NOT the supreme authority on what is compatible with the GPL and not. The courts are.
Eivind.
Not necessarily. There is some wiggle room (I am not a lawyer, so I don't know if this would fly in court, but based on the language, it appears to be a reasonable interpretation).
Apache has demonstrated a propensity for being reasonable when it comes to tainted Contributions (e.g., when a contributor knows the Contribution violates a patent and doesn't have authority to license those patent claim). They will willingly remove tainted Contributions from the Work, so litigation is unnecessary. However, it may be possible to wiggle around the litigation clause because once the Contribution is removed from the Work, it is no longer incorporated within the Work, and YourCo would be free to sue the former employee for patent infringement.
Apache's license isn't apocalyptic to IP owners. It's devestating to companies who use litigation as their only strategy for protecting IP.
Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you.
--
Runnin' around, robbin' banks all whacked on the Scooby Snacks...
The BSD license says, roughly, that you can do lots of things with this code as long as you leave the University of California's copyright on it. Making a trivial change to it does not remove that license. The GPL says, roughly, that you can do anything you want with the code as long as you leave the GPL attached to it and let anybody get the source somewhere for free. That would mean that you _could_ remove the UoC's copyrights from the code, and you're not allowed to do that.
You can distribute your patches to BSD FooBariFizer under the GPL. You could bundle the Original BSD FooBariFizer code with your changes and add a GPL-like license that requires anybody who distributes binaries of the bundle to also distribute the source for free - but that doesn't stop them from hunting down an original copy of BSD FooBar and distributing it without your patches, and unless you're a very careful license-hacker, or make your license enough different from GPL, it also doesn't stop somebody from preparing their own derivative work (your bundle minus the BSD stuff) and distributing that with or without the original BSD FooBariFizer source.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks