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

gpl like religion ?

[ehack]

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 ?"

Re:gpl like religion ?

[GigsVT]

Actually, here are some proposed additions for GPL Version 3:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the license of this code, If any man shall add unto these things, RMS shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this license.

And if any man shall take away from the words of the license of this code, RMS shall take away his part out of the license to this code, and out of the open bazaar, and from the things which are written in this license.

Re:gpl like religion ?

[orthogonal]

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 ?"

DDOS the heretic!

Cast him into the flames of Redmond!

Re:gpl like religion ?

[Notre97]

Repeat after me:
"There is no license but GPL, and RMS is it's prohet"

GPL non-GPL compliant?

[G3ckoG33k]

What's next? The current GPL, version 2, will not be GPL version 3 compliant?

Motivation?

[erroneus]

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...

What if Stallman bitched about licensing

[Gothmolly]

And nobody cared?
Is this the beginning of market forces affecting the open source movement? Practical realities asserting themselves over floating abstractions?

Hey, take it easy.

[bad enema]

It's only February my friend. There's plenty of time to screw it all u-... err, fix things up.

Re:Who knows

[SpamJunkie]

Thanks for writing your comment in Courier without using paragraph breaks. The paragraph is only the unit of composition.

Why did you bother to use periods?

Unrealistic example

[BabyDave]

(Quoted from Eben's message)

Such a situation is particularly troublesome where A is in no way acting to threaten the freedom of free software, but B *is* doing so (perhaps, for example, by bringing not patent claims but trade secret and contractual claims against A with the specific intent of harming the freedom of free software)

As if that would ever happen ... what did you say? Darl Mc-who?

Re:Who knows

[digital bath]

For the love of god, use some line breaks! My eyes are bleeding

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

[T-Ranger]

Your right, he wrote it so he could topple the Tanenbaum empire.