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
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that everything is carrying on as it always has.
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: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.
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: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:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:4, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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: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:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:3, Informative)
I said nothing of the sort.
If you contribute to a "pure" GPL project, you agree to release your code under the terms of the GPL.
Similarly, if you contribute to Apache, you agree to release your code under the Apache (2.0?) license.
If, however, you release code to a GPL project which later adopts a different license, than, by the GPL, you have every right to demand either the remo
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:3, Informative)
Which sounded a lot to me like: after the code is released we should be able to place additional restrictions on it.
Then you say...
Even assuming, for whatever reason, you cannot withdraw your code, by someone releasing it against your will under a more restrictive license, you haven't lost anything at all...
To which I say, yes... yo
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (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: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: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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:3, Informative)
scripsit tiger99:
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 intentio
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.
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
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.
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
Hey, take it easy. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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:Is anyone else getting worried here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 detail
Re:2004 is the year of many things... (Score:3, Insightful)
This a
GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
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:No. (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD style license give freedom, but no security. GPL gives limited freedom, but
Uh, dude... (Score:5, Informative)
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. (Score:3, Informative)
It can't be done the other way though. Neither proprietary nor GPL code can be put under a BSD licence.
Re:No. (Score:5, Informative)
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. (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:GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GPL (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
So, instead of just complaing about FSF complaining, I think it's smarter to counter their arguments with better ones.
gpl like religion ? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:gpl like religion ? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:gpl like religion ? (Score:3, Funny)
DDOS the heretic!
Cast him into the flames of Redmond!
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: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: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: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.
GPL non-GPL compliant? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:GPL non-GPL compliant? (Score:3, Interesting)
What the heck? (Score:4, Interesting)
CB
not bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knows (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who knows (Score:4, Funny)
Why did you bother to use periods?
Re:Who knows (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who knows (Score:5, Insightful)
<tt> is for code, not a way of life!
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.
Re:The OLD license wasn't either... (Score:4, Informative)
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: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. The
Re:Not necessarily... (Score:3, Informative)
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.
From the FSF site (Score:5, Informative)
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 pen
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...
The old license was incompatible too (Score:5, Informative)
From the FSF page linked in the article:
No falling sky here. Move along.
Re:The old license was incompatible too (Score:4, Informative)
BTW, surf over to gnu.org and take a look at the long list of GPL incompatible licenses [gnu.org]. These include Apache, Mozilla, PHP, Zope, Apple, and more. Again I ask, why all the excitement?
Re:The old license was incompatible too (Score:3, Interesting)
Because one of the reasons for developing the ASL 2.0 was to make it GPL compatible.
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 princ
Motivation? (Score:4, Funny)
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...
Re:Motivation? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
not exactly a new problem (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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].
What if Stallman bitched about licensing (Score:5, Funny)
Is this the beginning of market forces affecting the open source movement? Practical realities asserting themselves over floating abstractions?
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:Tower of Babel (Score:3, Insightful)
There are detailed descriptions, which are not too far apart from each other, of what it means to be Open Source [opensource.org] or Free [fsf.org] Software [debian.org].
While there are certainly more free/open source licenses than would be neccessary (and the OSI is at least trying
Unrealistic example (Score:5, Funny)
(Quoted from Eben's message)
As if that would ever happen ... what did you say? Darl Mc-who?
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.
Not too serious a problem... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Borked Section References in Moglen's Statement (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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.
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.
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
Explicit dual-licensing called for? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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.
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.
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.
OpenBSD rejects new license. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:oh no, rms doesn't approve! (Score:3, Informative)
Still, it is certainly th
Re:oh no, rms doesn't approve! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So Let me Get This Straight (Score:3, Informative)
In the above example he should be sueing for copyright infringement, not patent infringement. As a result, the patent clause doesn't take effect.
Re:Article is JUST FUD! (Score:3, Insightful)
and that, my friend, makes apache a whole lot less useful...