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."
Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Incompatible (Score:0, Interesting)
What the heck? (Score:4, Interesting)
CB
That's all? (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Who knows (Score:4, Interesting)
No. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:GPL non-GPL compliant? (Score:3, Interesting)
Stage in life (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Another bump in the road (Score:4, 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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody is fighting here.
The FSF wrote a letter explaining license incompatibility issues in Apache license 2.0, and they even say its not a bad idea, in the listing of licenses.
They state that the incompatibility exists, because it does, and they even imply that they might fix it themselves, so what's the problem?
Anyway, who cares about "Linux" arriving in a big way? What is important is that free software continues to advance, and most of all, continues to be _free_, and license incompatibilities are bad in that they dont allow the cooperation between the ASF and the FSF (and XFree people), who are probably the most important developers of free software.
Eben Moglen on Apache License, Version 2.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
So there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
Hurray for Microsoft!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or something like that.
Hey! Let's start a petition! Petition the FSF to include a statement to that effect in GPL3, and to release GPL3 by the end of the year.
That'll be something to look forward to.
Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Bah... (Score:2, Interesting)
http://people.freebsd.org/~seanc/ossal/
The GPL is the worst thing to happen to software development and stability in the last 20 years.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Interesting)
It being released this year seems less likely, AFAIK it is still in pie-in-the-sky mode. Sure, you can petition them about it, but remember that the consequences of a rushed, ill-concieved GPL V.3 would be way worse than that of a delayed one. "Release early, release often" probably doesn't work that well for legal documents.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end, a license is a piece of text. All that matters is what it says, not what the intention of its authors were. Just like with source code - I'm sure the Linux kernel hackers didn't actually intend do_mremap to be exploitable.
Re:GPL (Score:1, Interesting)
No, the GPL is doing *exactly* what it was intended to do: force everything
(well, actually, just everything you want to use together with any GPLed
code) to be licensed under a license that either *is* the GPL, is just *like*
the GPL, or is liberal enough to allow the code to be relicensed *under* the GPL.
If we want to get around this restriction, we're perfectly free to not use
GPLed code. Which IMO is exactly what the community should do: when there's
GPLed code that you'd like to use, but it's incompatible with the licensing you
want to use, rather than changing your licensing to support the FSF's extreme
idealistic stance, just replace the GPLed code with other code that's licensed
in a compatible fashion (e.g., BSD). This is exactly the approach that the FSF
takes to licenses with restrictions they don't like (e.g, proprietary licenses):
just don't use that code.
At this point, there's a *large* amount of GPLed software that we heavily rely
upon, so for practical reasons we would have to be gradual about moving away
from it. We'd have to replace Emacs (no small task), gcc (or just replace the
C and C++ development languages altogether...), the whole suite of Gnu tools,
and so on. But OTOH if we keep the GPL we will ultimately have to replace
everything that's got *different* restrictions, as we're seeing.
The BSD people have the licensing thing right: it's compatible with pretty
much *everything*, so pretty much everyone can use it. This isn't the tack
RMS wants to take, because he specifically wants to eliminate software that's
licensed under incompatible licenses. (He doesn't need to eliminate code
that's BSD-licensed, though, because it can be relicensed under the GPL at
will.)
Re:if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
If the copyright owner says "Sure you can do that", then you can. The only reason for all the paperwork people have is to prove agreements. In most countries permission under copyright law doesn't need to be written and signed.
Apache (as owners) said you can GPL derivative works if you want - end of discussion.
Trademark btw works very similarly except that its easier to create a promise by inaction ("estoppel"). You can in some cases lose the ability to enforce copyrights in some situations through estoppel too, but you don't lose the copyright per se just the ability to enforce it in some situations
Apache adding it as a footnote to their license would neaten it up but its hardly essential. Of course you then have openssl and other bits to consider. Really no standard loaded set of Apache packages has ever been GPL compatible, and except for the mysql4 problem nobody has had any problems due to it.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think some people are overreacting here, a change like the XFree change can be a fairly serious problem, but, as the FSF points out, the Apache license change isn't worrying at all. For that matter, the front page post is misleading, if you look at the FSF compatibility page the old versions of the Apache license are also incompatiable with the GPL.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:4, Interesting)
As another poster said the GPL already says this. The clause that makes the Apache license incompatible is that it adds a sentence that terminates any patent rights granted by others to use the product if you exert patent rights on the product differently from what is stated in the license. Basically, this is implied in the GPL with regards to copyright. i.e. if you don't distribute your copyrighted material in the product according to the GPL, you have no right to distribute my copyrighted product. Apache makes it explicit with regard to patents.
Re:The old license was incompatible too (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right, the situation has not become worse than it was. But it hasn't become as good as was expected either. The GNU project and the Apache Foundation are arguably the two most important FLOSS projects, and that interoperability between them keeps being hampered by incompatible licenses is just annoying, especially when it is only due to stupid legal details that are in principle non-critical to either party.
Re:the problem is, that we have to be this specifi (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Interesting)
A "computer utility" was the purpose behind the Multics project. Many mainframe hardware manufactures, in addition to small regional based outfits, opearated ASP style businesses as far back as the 1960's. ASPs are nothing new.
Ive said it before, HTTP+HTML - markup language with forms, client side rendering, few bits going accross the wire, is conceptually exactly the same as IBM 3270 terminals worked. A 1960's time sharing computer company is conceptually exactly the same as a 2004 web bases ASP.
They should have seen this coming.
Re:how can code under a patent ever count as "free (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It DOES matter! (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Alternatives to Apache (Score:2, Interesting)
- as a past roxen user, I find caudium to be more free in every sense.
New Apache License could be Magnet for Stolen IP (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:New Apache License could be Magnet for Stolen I (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
That is manifestly NOT what happened in the case of the Unisys LZW patent. Unisys stated informally to everyone that they could continue to use LZW compression in software for GIFs or whatever, then reversed their decision and instantly made tons of shareware and gratis software authors liable for IP infringement.
I know that was a case of patent law and not copyright law, but I believe the principles are the same. Most IP licenses are revokable by the IP owner; unless they tell you otherwise up front, the IP owner can come back and tell you you have a completely different set of rights and costs to use their IP tomorrow. Formal licenses like the GPL can explicitly agree to be irrevokable; informal agreements like you are talking about usually do not include this. In other words, anyone can pull a Unisys and tell you one thing while quietly getting ready to extort licensing fees from you.