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."
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.)
From the FSF page linked in the article:
No falling sky here. Move along.
Because GPL-compatibility was one of the reasons to develop ASL V2 in the first place (as the article states, by the way). That it didn't work out is kinda disappointing.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Apache license has never been compatible with any GPL besides LGPL.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
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.
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/
This is not the first case when the FSF had to declare a license they actually liked GPL-incompatible, the Affero GPL is another.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
Apache was never GPL-compatible. The only shift _away_ from GPL was XFree86. Apache is actually shifting _towards_ GPL-compatibility, but the news story is that it still has terms that prevent that compatibility.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Still, it is certainly the case the it is the GPL that prevents combination of ASL- and GPL-licensed code in a derived work, the ASL is fine with that.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
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?)
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
In the above example he should be sueing for copyright infringement, not patent infringement. As a result, the patent clause doesn't take effect.
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.
The GNU C libraries are LGPL'ed, which include a specific clause that says that linking is different from copying code. This clause is necessary, because in reality, (static) linking isn't any different from just copying code.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Actually, there's nothing stopping anyone from incorporating BSD licenced code into a GPL project any more than it stops Microsoft or Adobe.
It can't be done the other way though. Neither proprietary nor GPL code can be put under a BSD licence.
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
You're missing the point with regards to the GPL. Having a license that's not compatible with the GPL is fine. It's just that there are ramifications that need to be considered. If a library is licensed in a way that's not GPL compatible, all that means is that GPL'd programs cannot link against it. If that's the design of the author, then that's fine (a la Microsoft's licensing schemes for their WinCE SDK). In the case of XFree86 this is a big deal for distro makers because the majority of their software is GPL'd and under the new licensing terms there's no way to legally link the gpl'd code against the XFree86 libraries. In the case of Apache, there's not really a problem here; Apache has never been GPL compatible. You just have to be aware of the terms when you develop.
As for your falacies regarding freedom and the BSD and GPL licenses, those have been dealt with thoroughly before, except to say that your attitude works well for a small project, but for a large project (especially a large, self-contained project like a whole OS), the GPL offers you the developer more freedom and protection from greedy folks than the BSD would.
No, the GPL isn't the problem here. And it's hardly a virus. Just because Apache is not GPL compatible doesn't mean the Apache foundation is going to be pressured (or mysteriously forced by way of some magical IP beast) to go GPL. Let's end that FUD right here and now.
So, you are suggesting that you be able to place restrictions on code that the original author did not place on the code?
I said nothing of the sort.
If you contribute to a "pure" GPL project, you agree to release your code under the terms of the GPL.
Similarly, if you contribute to Apache, you agree to release your code under the Apache (2.0?) license.
If, however, you release code to a GPL project which later adopts a different license, than, by the GPL, you have every right to demand either the removal of your code, or that the project remain GPL.
This doesn't seem all that complicated, IMO; I wonder what I said that gave you the wrong idea...
Even assuming, for whatever reason, you cannot withdraw your code, by someone releasing it against your will under a more restrictive license, you haven't lost anything at all - You can still release it on your own under the raw GPL, with no such restrictions. But offhand, I can't think of any scenarios where that would even apply, since my fourth paragraph pretty much covers the precursor to such a situation.
Sure, we can still get Apache for free... but what happens when we want to make a few modifications and such? We get canned.
No. If you want to make modifications in violation of the non-GPL portion of Apache's license, you have every right (since they do base 99% of the license on the GPL) to release your changes under the pure GPL. You just can't contribute it back to Apache unless you agree to their additional terms. Nothing more, nothing less. They have even publically stated as much.
RTFA. RMS does approve of the Apache 2.0 license. But that doesn't make it any more GPL compliant.
#include "sig.h"
Of course, a future version of the GPL may or may not apply to your favorite software. Quite a bit of GPL software omits the "or any later version" provision. This includes the Linux kernel itself, if I remember right.
Of course, once people see the new version, they may be willing to add "or Version 3" (provided that all relevant copyright holders can be tracked down).
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! How the fuck do people manage to screw this up so completely and so consistently?
If you write a program utilizing GPLed code, and you distribute said program, you must release it under the GPL in order for that distribution to be legal. Should you fail to do this and get caught, you basically have three options:
- Release your program under the GPL
- Quit distributing the program until the GPLed code is removed
- Contact the original author and get him/her to let you use the code under a different license
Under no circumstances does your program automatically become GPL; copyright law doesn't allow for it, and the GPL doesn't try to do it. It simply says that if you wish to use GPLed code, you can do it under certain conditions. If those conditions aren't acceptable, then you may not use the code. Should you do so anyway, all they can do is make you stop using that code! They cannot make you change the license on yours. Is that clear enough?I was going to mod you down, but decided to reply instead.
This is why when you add a GPL license to your code, you either say "Placed under the GPL version X" or you say "Placed under the GPL version X or later".
Since the license is versioned, you can change the GPL, and not run into problems with changing the license on code people didn't want the license changed on..
scripsit tiger99:
Such a thing has already been done: It's called Debian. While the only mature kernel at the moment is Linux, you can also run Debian with HURD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD kernels. It's all Debian, though, regardless of what kernel you run or whether a particular system has X, Apache, or whatever.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Well, I read the quoted part to say that you thought "standing sphexishly by" section six to be a problem... and that you thought additional restrictions should be allowed.
Which sounded a lot to me like: after the code is released we should be able to place additional restrictions on it.
Then you say...
Even assuming, for whatever reason, you cannot withdraw your code, by someone releasing it against your will under a more restrictive license, you haven't lost anything at all...
To which I say, yes... you have lost something. You have lost the ability to insure that the end user has access to the source code that you wrote.
Someone may have specifically choosen the GPL because of the inability to restrict access to the code. (Which is my point.)
Note that I'm not talking about changes by the original author. If they release the software under a specific license, then that is done. It is their code and they can always release it under another license if they want. (Keeping in mind that it is still out there under the other license, also.) What I am talking about is how the software is released by someone else based upon the original license.
So, for example, taking a chunk of BSD code and converting it to GPL would be OK... because the BSD license let's you do just about anything with the code. But, going from GPL to BSD would be a no-no because you could have a binary only release and thus restrict who and how the original GPL source is furhter used... against the wishes of the GPL code author.
And my point (again) is that the original GPL code writer may have choosen the GPL because they wanted to make sure that the end user always had access to the source code... that the access was not restricted.
(Perhaps our different POVs are due to the term restricting?)
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Are you sure you are both talking about the same kind of ASP here? (Active server pages vs Application service provider)
The way I understand the problem, a GPL server-side app might send out pieces of itself, either in the form of static HTML which is GPLed, or snippets of what could be considered executable code (Javascript, etc), which are also GPLed.
If this counts as distribution of GPLed code, then many people who make modified works of GPLed server-side web apps might be in violation of the GPL by not distributing the rest of the source. It seems to be a gray area right now.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Serve Gonk.
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!