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
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.
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.
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.
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"
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Slashdot.
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..
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.