FSF: New Apache License not GPL-Compatible 405
__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."
GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Retroactive... (Score:4, Insightful)
if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:0, Insightful)
not bad (Score:3, Insightful)
oh no, rms doesn't approve! (Score:2, Insightful)
The OLD license wasn't either... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
GPL Evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Patent termination (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:GPL (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that everything is carrying on as it always has.
Re:gpl like religion ? (Score:1, Insightful)
You either understand the protections it was designed to offer, or you don't.
Re:GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they bother? They would lose a HUGE portion of their installed-base. People who use Apache do so from plenty of free OSs. Does anyone really think that someone from Apache is going to freak out and sue someone for distributing under the GPL? Darl, obviously, does not count.
What gives? (Score:1, Insightful)
The only thing necessary for Micro$oft to triumph is for a few good programmers to do nothing". North County Computers [nccomp.com]
Re:Incompatible (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Vigilance is exactly how we got here (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course its a tempest in a teapot for practically everyone out there in the real world.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your bias is evident in your choice of words and implicit goals.
(Mine is evident in that I point yours out
-Peter
Headline: GPL Found Incompatible With Open Source (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't hate the GPL at all, and would even consider using it on my own projects if I wanted the features that the GPL offers.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Relax.
Notice how the FSF and the Apache group are discussing the license? They'll work things out - no need for panic mongering.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Patents are the biggest threat to free/open source (Score:5, Insightful)
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].
Tower of Babel (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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"?)
Re:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:From the FSF site (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL
The obvious solution is to modify the GNU GPL, but the eyes of some this would amount to heresy of the highest order. We should be wary of such resistance to change; do we want an evolving license which suits our needs best, like the "amendable" US constitution, or a set-in-stone license like the "inerrant" bible?
For sure, the GPL has been allowed to evolve since its first penning by Eblen Moglen; we're up to v2.1 now, right? However, it is important to ask whether the ideas behind the GPL are also being allowed room to evolve; or whether they are stagnating under the orthodoxy fetish of RMS.
Try reading the story (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL does in effect take away the freedom of the programmers that modify code released under the GPL because it ensures that they will only re-release it under the GPL and not any other license, and when this idea is taken to extremes as people like RMS and ESR tend to, it creates unnecessary conflict in the opensource community.
As much as I hate to say it, the answer to this is tolerance. The OS community needs to realize that not everyone thinks that all code should be free and that if someone wants to allow others to profit off of their code then they should be allowed to and not criticized for it such as Sun or Apache are. Times like this are when I realize the communist nature of the FSF and understand why so many corporations are driven away.
Re:Another bump in the road (Score:2, Insightful)
(Projects with similar licenses include at least one of the BSDs, X11, zlib, libpng, all w3.org software, Ogg Vorbis, and Gnome's libxml/libxslt)
Re:SLASHDOT KILLS... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can they? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
We need FSF (Score:5, Insightful)
So, instead of just complaing about FSF complaining, I think it's smarter to counter their arguments with better ones.
Re:Article is JUST FUD! (Score:3, Insightful)
and that, my friend, makes apache a whole lot less useful...
Re:From the FSF site (Score:5, Insightful)
The XFree86 license change was a just a stupid idea from the beginning. There is no point changing the GPL to suit that...
Re:Hurray for Microsoft!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I prefer the GPL, it ensures that freedom will continue in perpetuity. I don't like any licenece where the Convicted Monopolist, or McBride, or anyone obnoxious can take a free program and make it non-free, benefiting from the usually free work of others. That is not fair. If you take the source, improve it and have to give the improved source back, that is fair. It would be best if the various slightly problematic licemces went away, and we had only the new improved GPL.
I think this one will be resolved amicably, if not, Apache will be forked, which will upset more people than it should.
I am seriously wondering if, with XFree86 and now Apache, there is some Malevolent Monopolist (probably already convicted) behind this, trying to divide and discredit Open Source. Don't let it happen!
Re:if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Apache might not care, but if that is actually the case, they should just dual license it like Perl does. Then you can go play with GPL stuff if you want, or you can not play with the GPL stuff. The Apache people feel strongly enough about it, that they don't want to be seen as endorsing the GPL (that's my guess). Along with all that, Apache could get themselves into legal trouble if they allow some people to blantantly disregard the license. (I'm not sure of the precendents in this area of law, I know that with Trademarks, you'd lose it).
If Apache wants to explicitly state: "It's all good, if you use this in a GPL'ed project", they should just dual license it. Then it's all good. If not, then legally, you have no legs to stand on in a court of law. If somehow the Apache foundation loses the copyright to it, you'll have no legs to stand on. Do what is legal, not what is "pseudo-legal", you never know when someone could change their mind. A legal document is a legal document, a vague statement of: "We don't care", isn't a legally binding statement until it's upheld in a court of law.
Kirby
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
making fun of RMS == easy mod points on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Explicit dual-licensing called for? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What if Stallman bitched about licensing (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to me co-operation is the practical reality (and need). Patents, copyright, and IP in general are the abstractions, and largely obsolete to boot. In other words, you have everything exactly reversed.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Who knows (Score:5, Insightful)
<tt> is for code, not a way of life!
The great thing about GPL & open source... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
the problem is, that we have to be this specific.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Exactly. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Then... you release under BSD. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:2004 is the year of many things... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:I agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What gives? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:how can code under a patent ever count as "free (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:making fun of RMS == easy mod points on /. (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct attitude about this is: I'm so glad those guys are nit-picky so I don't have to be!
We can grab a Linux kernel, and a whole bunch of cool software. We can use them, give copies to our friends, modify them... and we don't need to worry about IP issues, because other people are doing the worrying for us.
Be grateful.
steveha
Alternatives to Apache (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Roxen [roxen.com] has its GPL'ed webserver [roxen.com], and it's a very good one.
I like Apache and everything, but it's good to know there are alternatives.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:3, Insightful)
All these groups are working together to accomplish shared goals. Everybody has the same target in mind and are pretty tolerant of different details. There are only really two main categories, Free Software and Open Source, and they can be used on the same system together.
Compare this to how proprietary software works with page after page of EULAs, deriviative work clauses, changes of license without notice and company mergers and it's no wonder that SCO, IBM, Novell and AT&T can't even figure out who owns what for a major piece of software.
Realistically, FS/OS is a far more simple system. OSI and the FSF both publish nice and simple bulleted guidelines that allow anybody to test their license to see if it qualifies, and there are now dozens (hundreds?) of licenses that fall into either or both categories.
--
Evan
Re:the problem is, that we have to be this specifi (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [gnu.org]? 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.
Re:Tower of Babel (Score:3, Insightful)
While there are certainly more free/open source licenses than would be neccessary (and the OSI is at least trying to prevent this from getting worse, by not accepting new licenses if there isn't a convincing reason why no existing license can be used), there is that one big schism that cannot be resolved by license consolidation: Copyleft or not copyleft.
You will never make a GPL-user switch to a non-copyleft license, because he simply does not want proprietary software vendors to use his code. Likewise, you will never make a BSD-user switch to a copyleft license because they want anyone to be able touse their code for every purpose whatsoever, including proprietary software vendors. The fundamental reasons to hack on open-source code are just very different, and I think talking of both as one community is just plain wrong more often than not. (Of course, both camps are not a homogenous community of their own either.)
Part of the Open Source Process (legal bug-fix) (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OpenBSD rejects new license. (Score:0, Insightful)
Just proves that the BSD people can be as stupid as the GPL people.
NR
Licencing getting totally out of hand (Score:1, Insightful)
This is totally ridiculous. Just put it all into good old PUBLIC DOMAIN and stop bickering over semantics. Ego-driven drivel.
Re:Thus highlighting the pressing need (Score:1, Insightful)
Linus was never that keen on the GPL, he only GPLd the kernel because A) he didn't really mind either way and B) RMS wouldn't have it any other way.
That's a complete lie. Not only has Linus called going with the GPL the best decision he ever made with respect to the kernel, but RMS had absolutely no authority over him, so the phrase "RMS wouldn't have it any other way" is bollocks. RMS, if you remember, thought that the HURD was almost ready for primetime, so he wasn't even that concerned with Linux when the switch to the GPL happened.