Slashdot Mirror
Apache says ASL2.0 is GPL-compatible
Steve Loughran writes "The ASF board have put up on the Apache Web site, a page
rebutting claims that the new ASL2.0 license is incompatible with the GPL, claims made by on an
FSF page and covered in
Slashdot last week.The key points are (1) The interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF, it is designed to be rigorously defendable in a court of law.
(2) Rather than look at opinions about compatibility, people should look at the
ASF2.0 and GPL licenses to see if they really are compatible.
(3) If you look at the two licenses, they really are compatible.
This means there is nothing to stop you linking your [L]GPL apps against apache libraries, shipping them with apache applications, and the like." Of course, this is still up to debate.
Exactly. Or the Apache license.
If you code for the fun or to provide the world with something, use BSD/MIT/Apache license.
If you're trying to make a pointless statement, by all means use GPL.
False dilemma. The existence of other effective free licenses that achieve the goals you describe shows that the GPL isn't strictly needed. It may once have been needed, when there wasn't anything else, and its revolutionary attitude may have inspired more hackers to action than a more relaxed license would have, but today it's no longer the world's salvation. It's the guy still wearing the hippie shirt and singing Vietnam protest songs all by himself, never quite noticing that his friends grew up and bought Volvos.
ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine
Oh yeah! Well, your mother's not GPL compatible!
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
The GPL is considered a virus, because it is free as in BEER but not as in FREEDOM. It hooks you in with the "FREE BEER" aspect of the software, but you cannot do anything with that software except look at it, or use it. Don't you dare try to use your creativity to change it, because the greedy authors of the original art think your changes is their art. Its a typical trap license, and for people to bitch about another license being incompatible with a virus just sounds silly. The reality is the Apache License has more liberty packed in a few sentances than the GPL will ever have in its' pages upon pages leagal rehtoric.
The sad thing is all this hinges on giving the authors of software fair credit, which the Apache license belives is fair. Where the GPL belives that mentioning contrinutors, you know that people who add contributiosn to the gpl virus-ware, should get due credit, instead of being put under an umbrella of nameless, forgoten contributors who the author forgets to mention, and thus steals their contributions. This is typical GPL fair. The original author offten steals the contributions and never mentions the source of all the little patches, and alterations they force others to give back to them under the terms of the GPL, because the GPL license says listing authors is an incompatiblity.
You don't belive me? Well read for yourself at the GPL website: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. They spell it out very clearly that listing authors gets in the way of their eventual theft.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Ok. And that's not exactly the issue I was complaining about because...?
the freedom to chose the license we prefer for our code, which for many of us is a "share-alike" license such as the GPL.
Oh, you GPL advocates are so cute when you talk about freedom. I grew out of it many years ago when I realized the only kind of freedom RMS likes is the restrictive kind of freedom: all licenses except GPL are bad.
I remember that. It's ok to choose any license for your software as long as you choose GPL. Right?
rabblerousing from the proprietary sidelines via agent provocateurs, and their less intelligent cousins, trolls such as yourself, notwithstanding.
Yeah, damn those freethinking people who have trouble accepting the GPL dogma.
The owls are not what they seem