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."
I know this is will be Flamebait but with all these problems maybe the GPL should change.
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?
at a first glance it sounds like a bad thing, but after rtfa it sounds pretty cool to me, it avoids problems
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
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
Who's tearing what? You can't say that you are "pro-OpenSource" and then say "Well, unless it's an important piece of software. We can always make exceptions."
Seems to me that everything is carrying on as it always has.
And of course its a tempest in a teapot for practically everyone out there in the real world.
The Free Software community is not in the business of making "Open Source" succeed.
;-)
Your bias is evident in your choice of words and implicit goals.
(Mine is evident in that I point yours out
-Peter
Relax.
Notice how the FSF and the Apache group are discussing the license? They'll work things out - no need for panic mongering.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Actually I'm not worried.
:).
You tear things apart at the seems and stitch it into new things. Opensource seems to have always been about that. Projects will fork if there is a major issue that can't be worked around.
And who is tearing who apart?. As the post says derived works can be distributed under the GPL. The next version of the GPL will probably take into account patents and issues between these two licenses can probably be worked out then.
In the mean time, I'll still be using boa
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].
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?"
You can't say that you are "pro-OpenSource" and then say "Well, unless it's an important piece of software. We can always make exceptions."
True, but we don't need to...
Both the change in the X license, and now this from Apache, do not in any way violate the spirit of the free/open source movement. X simply wanted a bit of credit (not unreasonable, considering that I've actually had people familiar with RedHat ask me what OS I used, on seeing my Slackware fileserver on which I never even installed X... People associate X as a critical part of Linux). And Apache... Well, I think most of us would agree that rejecting patented contributions seems more in keeping with the spirit of free software than allowing them.
Basically, we as a community need to come up with a bit of a modification to section 6 of the GPL, the part that prevents additional restrictions as terms of the license. These "problems" will only cause a real schism if we sphexishly stand by that clause.
Not that section 6 doesn't have merit - But allowing certain categories of additional requirements would not in any way hurt us, and may well benefit us in the long run (ie, this addition by Apache strikes me as so obviously good that it surprises me to realize that the GPL doesn't already mention it, since how can code under a nonexpired patent ever count as "free"?)
Is it that hard for GPL fanatics to understand that some people don't WANT protection against people using their code in proprierty projects? I love the BSD license, exactly because it doesn't limit my code. Everybody (except GPL users appearently) can use my code, which I create under the BSD license, because I enjoy coding. And no, I don't care if Sun, Apple or Microsoft uses my code. If they do, well, I hope they choke on it.
BSD style license give freedom, but no security. GPL gives limited freedom, but great security. Wasn't it one of the founding fathers of the US who said "those who are willing to give up a liberty for security deserve neither"?
Really, if you ask me, GPL is the problem here, since it wants all other licenses in the world to be GPL. GPL is the OSS platform independent virus, but on IP.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
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.
It doesn't need to be released under the GPL to be okay. To define open source as GPL-only is somewhat stupid. Where's the tearing apart? Also, what seams? You're suggesting that there's some singular group that CAN be torn apart. Apache can do whatever the hell it wants, and probably will. To add some weak patent clause (and I read it, and I don't see any possible problem) is no big deal. I know you don't mean to panic-monger, so...don't do it.
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
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 can use Apache on GPL systems, just don't link to any gpl libaries
and that, my friend, makes apache a whole lot less useful...
Bullshit. There is no "orthodoxy fetish of RMS" at work here. The FSF isn't saying "though shalt not include patent clauses in your license." It's saying, "well, patent clauses aren't a bad idea, but as it is written, v2.1 of the GPL is not compatible with licenses that include a patent clause." The GPL is designed to be amended, and v3 of the GPL will most likely address patent issues.
The XFree86 license change was a just a stupid idea from the beginning. There is no point changing the GPL to suit that...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Why does every person, who is interested to see open source succeed in business environment, making it a resposibiity of the OSS community.
OSS software for most parts was never written with the objective to form a free alternative to propritory software. Most OSS projects started because of fustrations of the author at using the tools that existed at hand, and the inability to circumvent those tools, (the tools being propritory in nature).
Linus never wrote the linux kernel , so that it can topple the microsoft empire, much as most of you like to belive. neither was he interested in fighting the big Unix vendors at that time. He just wanted his own version of Unix to tinker with and Minix wouldn't allow him to do just that.
So to all those who say "This could have been a break through year for OSS, but for ....". Please go read some philosophy behind OSS.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
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.
Basically, we as a community need to come up with a bit of a modification to section 6 of the GPL, the part that prevents additional restrictions as terms of the license. These "problems" will only cause a real schism if we sphexishly stand by that clause.
So, you are suggesting that you be able to place restrictions on code that the original author did not place on the code?
That is what I'm hearing... that you want to be able to place restrictions on the code that someone else wrote.
Which makes me wonder... why don't you just use a BSD type license?
The GPL seems to me to be specifically for people that don't want others placing additional restrictions on their work.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
That quote doesn't apply to the users' situation either. Both the BSD and GPL licenses grant users additional rights over the rights they are guarenteed by law. By default users have no right to distribute. So the users are not giving up freedom because they did not have it in the first place.
If you're going to write all in one paragraph, at least have the courtesy to leave the default proportional font alone!
<tt> is for code, not a way of life!
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'....
Both version 2.0 and 1.1 of the Apache license are free software licenses according to the FSF, are (probably, not officially confirmed yet, but nobody raised any concern either) Open Source licenses in the OSI sense, are DFSG-free, etc.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
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.
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.
Bull. If RMS was so inflexible about using licenses other than the GPL we wouldn't even be hearing about these licence compatibilities issues from the FSF. They would simply say "If you don't use the GPL then we won't deal with you. End of story". Instead they put a great deal of effort into working with projects that use other licenses to make sure that they are compatible. They do this for the sole purpose of enabling people with different licences to work together and preventing free software from fracturing off into incompatible code bases. Exactly the opposite of what you and the original poster are claiming they do.
Furthermore, most of the time we hear about compatibility issues it is not a dispute but rather simply that the FSF's lawyers have noticed something that the authors of the other license didn't. Which is good to know. It would be a bad thing for developers to combine code released under two different licenses, thinking they were compatible, only to find out in a court room that they were wrong. Lastly, the only times the FSF has been inflexible about changing the GPL to deal with incompatibilities, it was because doing so would end up weakening the defensibility of the GPL in court.
Apart from the GNU/Linux thing, everything that the FSF has done has been extremely reasonable. The only difference between them and the majority of free software programers is that they have been bitten by laywers before and realise that unless you dot your i's and cross your t's it will happen again. Unfortunately, most geeks hate lawyers and formality, so this tends to rub them the wrong way, but it is necisarry. Considering all this junk with SCO, I for one am glad that the FSF has been so rigorous.
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...
Surely he isn't saying that; rather, that an "ideal" GPL would have a clause where you could say "licensed under the GPL, but if you intend to contribute to this project your contributions have to be free of patent encumberment (ie patent-free or guaranteed to be free of license fees)". This, IMO, would be a Good Thing as it would prevent (say) a media player being contributed to by Sorenson, only for Sorenson to turn round a few years later and say "oh, by the way, all your base are belong to us in patent royalties for that code we submitted". Not that I'm suggesting Sorenson would do that, it's just an example. Extra restrictions in the GPL to counter that kind of thing would be quite welcome (AFAIAC). It doesn't impose additional restrictions, but it does mean that if patent-holders contribute they can't later hamstring the entire project.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.