FSF: New Apache License not GPL-Compatible

__past__ writes "It seems that the XFree86 issue is not the only licensing battle currently fought in the FLOSS world: An update to the FSF's list of Free Software licenses lists the new Apache License, Version 2.0 (which has been discussed on Slashdot before) as not being GPL-compatible, due to a clause related to software patents." (Read on for more.)

__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?

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

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Who's tearing what? You can't say that you are "pro-OpenSource" and then say "Well, unless it's an important piece of software. We can always make exceptions."

Seems to me that everything is carrying on as it always has.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

You can't say that you are "pro-OpenSource" and then say "Well, unless it's an important piece of software. We can always make exceptions."

True, but we don't need to...

Both the change in the X license, and now this from Apache, do not in any way violate the spirit of the free/open source movement. X simply wanted a bit of credit (not unreasonable, considering that I've actually had people familiar with RedHat ask me what OS I used, on seeing my Slackware fileserver on which I never even installed X... People associate X as a critical part of Linux). And Apache... Well, I think most of us would agree that rejecting patented contributions seems more in keeping with the spirit of free software than allowing them.

Basically, we as a community need to come up with a bit of a modification to section 6 of the GPL, the part that prevents additional restrictions as terms of the license. These "problems" will only cause a real schism if we sphexishly stand by that clause.

Not that section 6 doesn't have merit - But allowing certain categories of additional requirements would not in any way hurt us, and may well benefit us in the long run (ie, this addition by Apache strikes me as so obviously good that it surprises me to realize that the GPL doesn't already mention it, since how can code under a nonexpired patent ever count as "free"?)

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

I'd like to see a clause in GPL3 that says something like "All patented contributions must be freely licensed for this work and automatically so for any legally derived works."

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. :) I don't have the time to spawn the petition, but if I see it on Slashdot, I'll sign it.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Petition the FSF to include a statement to that effect in GPL3, and to release GPL3 by the end of the year.

I think it is pretty likely that the GPL3 will include something on patents anyway, this actually seems to be one of the two major reasons why people feel an update is neccessary (the other one being the "ASP hole", i.e. the GPL not being prepared for a web application scenario)

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?

I don't understand the problem here. RMS is old enough to remember when computers were big and centerlized.

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:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Are you sure you are both talking about the same kind of ASP here? (Active server pages vs Application service provider)

The way I understand the problem, a GPL server-side app might send out pieces of itself, either in the form of static HTML which is GPLed, or snippets of what could be considered executable code (Javascript, etc), which are also GPLed.

If this counts as distribution of GPLed code, then many people who make modified works of GPLed server-side web apps might be in violation of the GPL by not distributing the rest of the source. It seems to be a gray area right now.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

It already has such a provision.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

...

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

However, it has this available geographic restriction.

8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

"All patented contributions must be freely licensed for this work and automatically so for any legally derived works."

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:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Basically, we as a community need to come up with a bit of a modification to section 6 of the GPL, the part that prevents additional restrictions as terms of the license. These "problems" will only cause a real schism if we sphexishly stand by that clause.

So, you are suggesting that you be able to place restrictions on code that the original author did not place on the code?

That is what I'm hearing... that you want to be able to place restrictions on the code that someone else wrote.

Which makes me wonder... why don't you just use a BSD type license?

The GPL seems to me to be specifically for people that don't want others placing additional restrictions on their work.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

I was going to mod you down, but decided to reply instead.

This is why when you add a GPL license to your code, you either say "Placed under the GPL version X" or you say "Placed under the GPL version X or later".

Since the license is versioned, you can change the GPL, and not run into problems with changing the license on code people didn't want the license changed on..

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Surely he isn't saying that; rather, that an "ideal" GPL would have a clause where you could say "licensed under the GPL, but if you intend to contribute to this project your contributions have to be free of patent encumberment (ie patent-free or guaranteed to be free of license fees)". This, IMO, would be a Good Thing as it would prevent (say) a media player being contributed to by Sorenson, only for Sorenson to turn round a few years later and say "oh, by the way, all your base are belong to us in patent royalties for that code we submitted". Not that I'm suggesting Sorenson would do that, it's just an example. Extra restrictions in the GPL to counter that kind of thing would be quite welcome (AFAIAC). It doesn't impose additional restrictions, but it does mean that if patent-holders contribute they can't later hamstring the entire project.

Re:how can code under a patent ever count as "free

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.

Re:how can code under a patent ever count as "free

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.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Sure, we can still get Apache for free... but what happens when we want to make a few modifications and such? We get canned.

No. If you want to make modifications in violation of the non-GPL portion of Apache's license, you have every right (since they do base 99% of the license on the GPL) to release your changes under the pure GPL. You just can't contribute it back to Apache unless you agree to their additional terms. Nothing more, nothing less. They have even publically stated as much.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

...is because of issues like this. Idealistic licensing issues.

Which is why the FSF says, on their page, that this isn't really a problem. Its incompatiable with the GPL, but that doesn't mean the FSF thinks its evil, or wants to see it crushed, or even considers it to be a massive hassle. Its just incomptiable, that's all.

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?

This is a case of License Holy Wars. This is a case of RMS getting his knickers in a twist because someone has the audacity to release a useful and popular open-source program without the Holy GPL.

Bull. If RMS was so inflexible about using licenses other than the GPL we wouldn't even be hearing about these licence compatibilities issues from the FSF. They would simply say "If you don't use the GPL then we won't deal with you. End of story". Instead they put a great deal of effort into working with projects that use other licenses to make sure that they are compatible. They do this for the sole purpose of enabling people with different licences to work together and preventing free software from fracturing off into incompatible code bases. Exactly the opposite of what you and the original poster are claiming they do.

Furthermore, most of the time we hear about compatibility issues it is not a dispute but rather simply that the FSF's lawyers have noticed something that the authors of the other license didn't. Which is good to know. It would be a bad thing for developers to combine code released under two different licenses, thinking they were compatible, only to find out in a court room that they were wrong. Lastly, the only times the FSF has been inflexible about changing the GPL to deal with incompatibilities, it was because doing so would end up weakening the defensibility of the GPL in court.

Apart from the GNU/Linux thing, everything that the FSF has done has been extremely reasonable. The only difference between them and the majority of free software programers is that they have been bitten by laywers before and realise that unless you dot your i's and cross your t's it will happen again. Unfortunately, most geeks hate lawyers and formality, so this tends to rub them the wrong way, but it is necisarry. Considering all this junk with SCO, I for one am glad that the FSF has been so rigorous.

Vigilance is exactly how we got here

Testing the value we place in the idea of open source will not tear the community apart, it will strengthen and clarify.

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?

The Free Software community is not in the business of making "Open Source" succeed.

Your bias is evident in your choice of words and implicit goals.

(Mine is evident in that I point yours out ;-)

-Peter

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

If I ever saw an insightful comment, this is one.

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.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Apache license has never been compatible with any GPL besides LGPL.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

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?

Actually I'm not worried.

You tear things apart at the seems and stitch it into new things. Opensource seems to have always been about that. Projects will fork if there is a major issue that can't be worked around.

And who is tearing who apart?. As the post says derived works can be distributed under the GPL. The next version of the GPL will probably take into account patents and issues between these two licenses can probably be worked out then.

In the mean time, I'll still be using boa :).

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

Exactly. Do a trivial change to make it a dervied work, problem solved. In the same way you can take a BSD program, do something to it, and release it as GPL (good) or closed source (very bad...).

Trivial changes are not copyrightable, so you have to spend a little more effort... :-)

I think this one will be resolved amicably, if not, Apache will be forked, which will upset more people than it should.

I can't see any reason why anyone would fork apache because of this. Nobody did before, and the new license is not in any way "worse" (from a GPL point of view), it is just not as much better in comparison with the old Apache licenses as was hoped.

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.

Hey, take it easy.

It's only February my friend. There's plenty of time to screw it all u-... err, fix things up.

Re:Is anyone else getting worried here?

RTFA
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.

Try reading the story

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.

Sounds like chicken little to me. Heck, even the FSF doesn't have a problem with this. From the article:

" 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.)"

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:Is anyone else getting worried here?

It doesn't need to be released under the GPL to be okay. To define open source as GPL-only is somewhat stupid. Where's the tearing apart? Also, what seams? You're suggesting that there's some singular group that CAN be torn apart. Apache can do whatever the hell it wants, and probably will. To add some weak patent clause (and I read it, and I don't see any possible problem) is no big deal. I know you don't mean to panic-monger, so...don't do it.

GPL

I know this is will be Flamebait but with all these problems maybe the GPL should change.

Re:GPL

Well I don't think that I'm qualified. I'm not a lawyer. I looked at the Apache license. IT seems like a good thing. If the GPL is so restrictive that it won't ever work with any other type of license then it should be changed. I believe in both types of free but with all these licenses fighting against each other it does nothing to help linux.

Re:GPL

No, it is about the GPL. Whether a license is GPL-compatible or not can be mechanically deduced by looking at its terms, and neither the FSF nor anybody else has the power to declare some license GPL-compatible because they think it is morally or politically good. The FSF doesn't seem to have much of a political problem with the new Apache license, but it is still not GPL-compatible.

This is not the first case when the FSF had to declare a license they actually liked GPL-incompatible, the Affero GPL is another.

We need FSF

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.

No.

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.

Uh, dude...

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.)

Re:No.

You're missing the point with regards to the GPL. Having a license that's not compatible with the GPL is fine. It's just that there are ramifications that need to be considered. If a library is licensed in a way that's not GPL compatible, all that means is that GPL'd programs cannot link against it. If that's the design of the author, then that's fine (a la Microsoft's licensing schemes for their WinCE SDK). In the case of XFree86 this is a big deal for distro makers because the majority of their software is GPL'd and under the new licensing terms there's no way to legally link the gpl'd code against the XFree86 libraries. In the case of Apache, there's not really a problem here; Apache has never been GPL compatible. You just have to be aware of the terms when you develop.

As for your falacies regarding freedom and the BSD and GPL licenses, those have been dealt with thoroughly before, except to say that your attitude works well for a small project, but for a large project (especially a large, self-contained project like a whole OS), the GPL offers you the developer more freedom and protection from greedy folks than the BSD would.

No, the GPL isn't the problem here. And it's hardly a virus. Just because Apache is not GPL compatible doesn't mean the Apache foundation is going to be pressured (or mysteriously forced by way of some magical IP beast) to go GPL. Let's end that FUD right here and now.

Re:No.

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"?

Yeah, it's a nice quote, but your use of it is fundamentally flawed. The author of a piece of code is not giving up any freedom by licensing it under the GPL. With the GPL the author retains all freedoms, and gains a measure of security in how that code is used. This is true of virtually all licenses as they generally specify the rights of the user, not the author, and almost never involve a transfer of copyright.

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.

gpl like religion ?

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 ?"

Re:gpl like religion ?

Actually, here are some proposed additions for GPL Version 3:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the license of this code, If any man shall add unto these things, RMS shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this license.

And if any man shall take away from the words of the license of this code, RMS shall take away his part out of the license to this code, and out of the open bazaar, and from the things which are written in this license.

Retroactive...

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)...

if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference?

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?

Re:if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference?

Whatever code you are distributing it with. That would make a difference. So if you take Apache, and combine it with GCC (don't ask me how, just play along). You've violated GCC's GPL license, or you've removed restrictions from the Apache License.

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:if Apache doesn't care, what's the difference?

I must disagree

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.

GPL non-GPL compliant?

What's next? The current GPL, version 2, will not be GPL version 3 compliant?

What the heck?

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

not bad

at a first glance it sounds like a bad thing, but after rtfa it sounds pretty cool to me, it avoids problems

Who knows

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.