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."
Slightly concerned that we'll look back and say "Well, 2004 would've been the year Linux arrived in a big way . . . EXCEPT THAT WE TORE OURSELVES APART AT THE SEAMS."
I don't mean to panic-monger or scream that the sky is falling without due cause - but this is all starting to get a bit worrying. Open Source has enough problems right now without actively helping its opponents.
--Ryv
I know this is will be Flamebait but with all these problems maybe the GPL should change.
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 ?"
This is not a signature.
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?
What's next? The current GPL, version 2, will not be GPL version 3 compliant?
I feel like i've been sleeping for months, all of a sudden this is all hitting the fan? What, will we all have to run some Hurd variant soon to be fully compliant?
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
1)Add some new comments to the Apache code
2)Recompile
3)...
4)Profit!!!
So that's the answer then, we just change a few comments, recompile, and call it a derived work? Surly it can't be that simple?
SCO.com uses Linux
at a first glance it sounds like a bad thing, but after rtfa it sounds pretty cool to me, it avoids problems
I believe that you can distribute a program under the GNU General Public License and a seperate Trademark license. That is what AbiSource does with AbiWord. And I don't think it restricts the freedom of the user since it is still allowed to distribute derived works. What does not seem to be compatible with the GPL is trying put any further restrictions on the user by invoking normal copyright law. By trying to use copyright law in the Apache license to restrict the rights of recipient to use an arbitrary word in the use of their derived work doesn't seem to be compatible with the GPL. (That arbitrary word would of course be Apache in this case :) Although if you have a real trademark on that word then clause
4 and 5 could be seen as just stating that the Apache License does not
grant someone the right to use the word Apache since it is a trademark.
But if that is the case then you could easily take away all confusion by
using something like the following instead of clauses 4 and 5:
This license does not grant you the right to use any of the trademarks
of the Apache Software Foundation. "Apache" is a trademark of the Apache
Software Foundation and products derived from this software may not be
called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior
written permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
I think that would make sure that the new Apache License is compatible with
the GPL.
RMS is a visionary and all but he's not a God. I don't deny that he's important, but, at the end of the day, if RMS doesn't like the license I use for my software, I don't really give a fuck. And neither should Apache.
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
The problem is not one of the GPL being problematic, but rather people not thinking through what they're doing with their licensing. One of the GPL's purposes is to ensure that the code stays available to those that are interested in it as long as they are so interested. Pretty much only the GPL and LGPL do this of all the licenses out there. The other variants do this to some or no degree (MPL and APSL do some of this, but they're not as strong as the GPL is in this regard and the BSD/MIT/Artistic variants tend to not protect you from propritization of the code at all...).
In the case of the new XFree86 license, it's a stupid play on their part to try to get more recognition (there's other ways to do this, folks- not a single player in the FOSS community is claiming that they're the ones that produced XFree86 at this point in time.) and I'm sure that the Apache license is probably another example of something not being quite thought out in the ramifications department.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
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.)
... certain people in Redmond and Lindon are screaming with laughter and crying out of excitement with their respective goons, while celebrating the fact that the tides are turning in their favour.
Hate me!
From the FSF page linked in the article:
No falling sky here. Move along.
Has OSS reached a stage in the lifecycle that few siblings are big enough to branch out now?
In the early days, all everyone cared about is making OSS, and the whole model is the production of best software based on peer-review.
Nowadays, some OSS distributors are gaining enough cash reserve, support and momentum and it's sad to see other agendas come into play.
These few weeks we have seen enough incidents already.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
No. Whoever group/person who programs XF86/Apache OWNS it. This is not so clear, as those are big projects that have been maintained by lots of people, but the point is, the code is THEIRS.
If they decide to distribute its code under GPL, under BSD licenses, or to distribute it in binary form, they still own the code. They already distributed it under GPL before, so they cannot recall that code back home, but they still can do whatever they want with their code.
And of course its a tempest in a teapot for practically everyone out there in the real world.
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...
Many developers have strong convictions about which license they wish to use when releasing their code. However, I think that they'd often rather reuse and extend an existing library that does not use their license of choice than be burdened with re-implementing that functionality within their products or creating a new project with their license-of-choice. These kinds of incompatibilities encourage duplication of effort and discourage collaboration on many projects.
I often wonder whether this problem could be mitigated or even solved by some creative license language. I'd like to license my software in such a way that it could be reused by projects using any of a majority of the other open source licenses. Also, I'd like to modularize it so that it could take advantage of high quality software released under otherwise incompatible licenses.
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/
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].
And nobody cared?
Is this the beginning of market forces affecting the open source movement? Practical realities asserting themselves over floating abstractions?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's only February my friend. There's plenty of time to screw it all u-... err, fix things up.
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?"
(Quoted from Eben's message)
As if that would ever happen ... what did you say? Darl Mc-who?
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.
So there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
It seems they said long ago in their Halloween Documents that "The lack of singular, customer-focused management has resulted in the unwillingness to compromise between the different initiatives and is evident of the management costs in the Linux process."
In my opinion, this recent XFree86 (and now Apache) business is further proof that Microsoft was right about this. I'm not trying to bash open source as a whole--I am a big Linux fan. However, I think this problem MUST be solved if the OSS community is to move forward. We cannot go on having endless fragmentation of projects, proliferation of different (non) standards and forks and everyone-going-their-own-way. A truly usable desktop OS's bread-and-butter is its ability to have truly inter-operable (dare I say this--horizontally integrated) components.
Just my 2 cents worth.
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?)
I still do not consider it ambigous or a flame-bait, in fact, I think it is more appropriate than you proposal (because it is just the FSF's opinion that the Apache license is not GPL-compatible, and others, like Roy Fielding, disagree - and if it really is not would have to be determined in court.)
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
This is a joke, right?
I have contributed exactly 1 (one) line of code to the Apache webserver. I distributed this code under the GPL. How can anyone who is not the owner say MY line, which is still mine, is no longer GPL? The GPL strictly prohibits taking code to any other license...
Well... Actually, I didn't write apache code, but this was just an example. But there are hunderds of people who CAN say this.
.sig: No such file or directory
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 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.
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...
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.
I, for one, use plenty of non-GPL software in my day to day life. I enjoy GPL software, but I tend to release open source software under more permissive licenses, such as MIT. I also use (and write) a lot of (gasp) closed source software as well.
For the love of Pete, there are plenty of different software licenses out there. If you don't like the terms of a given license, don't use the software. If apache changes their terms because they think it makes them less likely to be sued, good for them. The GPL isn't the One True License, it's just one of the more restrictive ones that still claims to be "free". News flash: you can run software with virtually any license as long as you agree to the conditions. If some GPL-zealot distribution decides not to include Apache because of this, that's their problem.
F- the GPL. I need to write an updated version of this that follows a more legally friendly format, but:
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/ossal/
The GPL is the worst thing to happen to software development and stability in the last 20 years.
-- Sean Chittenden
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...
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.
is that when/if projects like XFree86 and Apache stop providing their software for free, someone will jump in and provide a substitute service for free and more people will use that product instead. Let's face it. A gigantic reason people use XFree86 and Apache are because they are free. We could use Gimp as an example. I would much rather run Adobe Photoshop at home but the fact the Gimp is free makes up for any lack of performance. Of course, there are other programs like OpenOffice for windows, that I would much rather use than a bloated microsoft office just to be able to type up a paper. So not only is OpenOffice free, it is a better product for me. However, if things were the other way around; if microsoft word were free and OpenOffice was not, i would use word. What I am trying to say is that whether a free program is inferior or not, we are more likely to use it than a non-free program. Apache and XFree86 have literally had years and years of beta testing by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. If they begin to charge for their program. Someone somewhere will see the opportunity and create a substitute service (although it may perhaps be temporarily inferior) for free and people will begin using, hacking, and therefore improving it.
In addition to all this, there is another important point to make. Microsoft and other companies that charge insane amounts for software, capitalize on the ignorance of users by providing an easy-to-use service with telephone tech support and by providing a product that "gets us by." The average Linux/BSD et. al. user has an advantage because s/he can say "stuff it" to a company who decides to charge and make a transition to another program that make require more savvy user, or require additional tweaking, or have less tech support but makes free software. We need not be troubled, free software will prevail in our world.
beanthemagictomato
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'....
Right on, brother. Wish I had some mod points.
GPL _is_ the problem. I don't understand this rabid fanaticism people have over the GPL. _Your_ code will always be free if you use a different licenses, e.g. BSD. This is simply true. What do you care if someone modifies it and keeps the _changes_ they make? It's not going to invalidate your code and make it proprietary.
It's not dying. It can't shrink. It can only stay the same or grow.
People are free to contribute back everything, or just pieces/parts that won't take away from any special 'edge' they built on in propriatary code. Not being *forced* to contribute back, it can often make the non-coding bosses feel much more secure, and not worry about contributing back other parts that won't give your competition some competitive advantage.
The rhetoric of "selling licenses is so old sk00L... now we make our money from servicing those programs and coding customizations" has been proven false. Don't people realize that *those* tasks can easily be outsourced too? There's always some talented person in some corner of the world who's willing to work for a few dollars cheaper than you are. By giving up control over who gets to sell your product that you developed, you are essentially coding yourself into a wonderful unemployment situation.
This argument has nothing to do with free software... There will also be some talented person in some corner of the world who is willing to produce proprietry software for a few dollars cheaper.
Welcome to the capitalistic world.
Add to that that most software is already custom written instead of the 'license selling' you mention... Practically every above average company has tons of custom software. And think about all the embedded stuff. The licensed 'desktop' stuff is the most visible, but only a small part of the software bussiness and an even smaller part of the IT bussiness as most shops that are in the 'IT' bussiness are really just implementing and managing premade sollutions.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Even if the GPL'd code is part of a binary static lib, there's still some fuzziness on the use of a GPL'd API. Enough fuzziness that my company's management didn't want to risk using it.
Huh? I'm confused. They didn't want to risk using a GPL'd library?
Yes, you can't statically link to a GPL'd library with a non-GPL'd piece of code. That's not stupid, because no one would know that you're using GPL'd code. In essence, you're saying "Thanks for the code - now screw off!" to the people that created it. They also don't know if you changed it, improved it, etc. Essentially you're stealing their work without helping them at all. I don't consider the prevention of this a bad thing.
But why would you care about statically linking a GPL'd library? What's wrong with dynamically linking it? If you're worried about people not having the dynamic library, ship it with the product - along with the source of the dynamic library, which you have, because it's GPL'd.
I never understood the "fuzziness" part...
First of all, the Apache lisence was never GPL compatable. So nothing will change with the new license. Second, XFree86 will be forked, thanks to the greatness of OSS. Third, GNOME can never be anything other than GPL, because it is already GPL. Same with the Linux kernel.
#include "sig.h"
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.
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?Well, Roxen has its GPL'ed webserver, and it's a very good one.
I like Apache and everything, but it's good to know there are alternatives.
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...
"- all changes are clearly labelled"
This would require someone using the source code to provide a HUGE list of updates. Where should this be clearly labelled? In the documentation? In the splash screen? In the About-box?
What if there were several companies providing changes to the original source code. Where would the end be? After 10 years, how many changes would be listed?
"-the original author(s) are credited as the creators of the original code"
Why only the original? What if someone contributed something that was more than a 100% of the original contribution? If the original contributors were credited, shouldn't them? And where should that be presented?
"-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."
Eh.. So you are using the original source files as the judgement of modification? So if someone copies the source files completely, and writes around all your problems in other source files without distributing changes, then that is better than someone changing your source files without distributing the changes?
The thing is, a license is complicated if it tries to do something other than give away all rights..
GPL or Copyleft gives away most rights, but not all, and tries to make sure that the work done by the original contributors is kept open without ending up being used in closed source projects without the copyright holder being asked about it. I find that to be perfectly fine.
The problem is that you can't write something really simple in legalese. All the possible problems, of which I've mentioned only a few, have to be taken into account, or you might end up in a lawsuit not going your way, sooner or later.
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 "undo" it for future releases, but whatever you already GPL'd stays that way forever.
Licensing is a form of contract. It works the same way for patents as for copyrights. If you explicitly allow a patent to be used for free under certain conditions, you can no more undo that than you can undo specifically allowing a copyright to be used for free.
The compression algorithm for GIFs never was offered for free in the first place. It just took the owner a long time to complain about its use.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Better to fix the problem now, than to wait until an Open Source company gets 'owned' (possibly quit literally) by another, much less scrupulous company taking advantage of the bugs that Eben has noted.
Not only is he not dissing section 5 outright, but he's suggesting that the approach taken may be folded into future versions of the GPL. It's pretty hard to have a more friendly 'disagreement' than that.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If I want to distribute a derived work made partially from Apache software under the Apache license version 2, and partially from Foobarco's software under the GPL version 2, the fact that Roy Fielding (or even the Apache Foudnation) is OK with it does NOT solve the problem. Distributing the derived work under the Apache license terms is a violation of the GPL, and Foobarco would have grounds for action.
I've been using Linux since my first Slackware disk in 1994 or 1995. But version 2.0 of the Apache license, alone or in conjunction with Evan Moglen's assertion that FSF is going to revise the GPL to deal with patents, is enough to keep me from ever wanting to touch another Linux distribution.
First, exactly what harm has free software, and specifically, GPL-ed software, ever seen from software patents? Yes, I am aware of the Eolas decision against Microsoft, but has the owner of that patent given any hint of being interested in suing the writers or distributors of any GPL-ed software for money? Yes, I know about the GIF patent, but was anyone distributing or using free software actually sued over that patent? To my knowledge, the patent owner only demanded that the patent not be used in free products wihtout payment of a royalty.
Second, if you look at the damages available to a patent owner as compared to that of a copyright owner, you will see that many of the draconian remedies and huge statutory minimum damages available under copyright law just aren't available under patent law. In most instances, I would imagine that a patent holder would simply demand that the patented feature be taken out of the GPL-ed product until the patent expired. There would be very little incentive, if any, to go after ordinary users.
But more importantly, the Apache license as written seems to guarantee that Apache would act as a magnet for stolen intellectual property. Almost anyone with an axe to grind against some company (the fact that the company has software patents would likely be enough) and knowledge that GPL-ed products or Apache-licensed products are used in that company would be motivated to try to incorporate those patents into a code contribution as a matter of spite. Thus, the "free" software product with the patent license revocation clause would almost certainly become littered with stolen IP and be vulnerable to attack from many fronts.
Even worse, I understand that at least one company (i.e., IBM and possibly others) that supports free software selectively releases their software patents for use with GPL-ed software that they contribute, when the contribution would otherwise be covered by their own patent. How much longer do you think this company would be willing to contribute to free software if it could not enforce its other patents against someone who is maliciously stealing IP from the company?
I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in using or recommending Apache to anyone if the version 2.0 license is in effect. And if Evan Moglen allows FSF to incorporate an "in terrorem"-like clause concerning software patents into the GPL, then I will lose a great deal of respect for him as a practical attorney. I think clauses like this will increase the need for attorneys to study software licenses at companies, thereby increasing the cost of free software. And the term itself will inhibit both the adoption and advancement of free software.
Serve Gonk.
Not so. Read the License. The Patent provision is only binding on the contributor's patents (i.e., if you own patents that will be necessarily infringed by your contributions to Apache, then you automatically grant a patent license for use in Apache (and derivative works, I assume) ). If the contributor then sues Apache for patent claims, then the license revokes their license to use the software.
It is a reach to suggest that someone stealing IP from a company and contributing it to Apache would bind that company to accept that their IP has been released. Furthermore, the license provision is only triggered by litigation against Apache, and it is unlikely that a company whose IP has stolen (except for a certain desperate Utah-based company) would start right off the bat with litigation.
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!