FSF: New Apache License not GPL-Compatible

__past__ writes "It seems that the XFree86 issue is not the only licensing battle currently fought in the FLOSS world: An update to the FSF's list of Free Software licenses lists the new Apache License, Version 2.0 (which has been discussed on Slashdot before) as not being GPL-compatible, due to a clause related to software patents." (Read on for more.)

__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."

Comments

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

[Tassach]

This isn't a case of "pro-opensource" vs "anti-opensource". This is a case of License Holy Wars. This is a case of RMS getting his knickers in a twist because someone has the audacity to release a useful and popular open-source program without the Holy GPL. I'm suprised he's not saying that it should be called "GNU/Apache" instead of just "Apache".

And yet..

[ProtonMotiveForce]

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.

Double Standard for the Crown Jewels, I See...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

It doesn't need to be released under the GPL to be okay. To define open source as GPL-only is somewhat stupid.

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)!

Thus highlighting the pressing need

[Rogerborg]

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.