Apache License [LWN.net]

Apache License

Posted Oct 6, 2004 10:29 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link]

I take the phrase "yet another semi-open-source piece of software..." as an attempt at flamebaiting, yes. The licence is OSI certified, the FSF consider it a free software licence, and Debian appear to be happy with it from a DFSG point of view (they're actively debating the Apache License 2.0 patent termination clause at the moment). A vocal minority have made some nasty comments about the ASF, suggesting they deliberately engineered their new licence to be GPL incompatible, when in truth I believe ASF tried very hard to create a licence that met their own requirements as well as being compatible with version 2 of the GPL.

Apache License and Free But Shackled - The Java Trap

Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:28 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]

The phrase "yet another semi-open-source piece of software..." was probably because often the Apache Group accepts "Open Source" which cannot be build or used with free tools. Since this is another project written in the java programming language there might be a chance that the source code hasn't even been tried to work with gcj or kaffe. It would be good if someone could try it out.

I suggest reading "Free But Shackled - The Java Trap".

That said, the fact that the Apache License 2.0 failed to be GPL compatible because of the extra restrictions that are not in the GPL is indeed a bit annoying at times. One of the stated goals of the new license was to be more compatible with other free software/open source licenses. Talks to make this finally happen with a Apache License 2.1 would be very welcome. And should be encouraged. Eben Moglen did try to help out with the Apache License 2.0 and made suggestions to fix the issue. So it probably is not a fatal design flaw and the licenses could be made compatible.

Apache License and Free But Shackled - The Java Trap

Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:56 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link]

I accept your point about the use of Java in open source/free software, but the fact that the comment was entitled "Apache License" makes it very clear that it was not about the use of Java. The Apache License is certified open source, calling it "semi-open-source" is disingenuous.

Apache License and Free But Shackled - The Java Trap

Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:58 UTC (Wed) by trawick (guest, #7304) [Link]

>often the Apache Group accepts "Open Source" which cannot be build
>or used with free tools

Whether or not that is true, such a situation is not a problem* IMHO, as the state of the code at any particular time is not so important for the long haul. The long term solution resides with the goal of the ASF to foster the type of development community which can accept good technical solutions for issues like that from people with the skills and the desire.
(*no more than any other area of potential improvement)

>the Apache License 2.0 failed to be GPL compatible because of the extra >restrictions that are not in the GPL is indeed a bit annoying at times

For these extra restrictions, folks should consider whether they think a restriction should be removed because the restriction is in and of itself harmful to users of the software, or it should be removed just because it is not compatible with current content of FSF licenses and you don't think FSF is willing to make an update to their license to account for it, or it should be removed because the the FSF takes an active dislike to the restriction and you don't think they can be convinced to change their mind, or it should be removed for some other reason.

Apache License

Posted Oct 6, 2004 12:18 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link]

A vocal minority have made some nasty comments about the ASF, suggesting they deliberately engineered their new licence to be GPL incompatible

After calling me a "vocal minority" and marking my opinion as "flaimbait" and "nasty comments", it would be fair to at least provide a link to the discussion of these "nasty comments" (Geronimo and JBoss), especially since you participated in it. Then the people who are interested in the subject could at least check how much of a flaimbait those comments were.

Apache License

Posted Oct 6, 2004 11:49 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link]

I think the ASF and FSF are both full of smart people, and will eventually resolve the GPL compatibility issues.

I never said they're not smart. I just tend to apply to ASF the Soviet proverb: a person can't be all three of smart, honest, and communist party member.

I have no reason to believe that ASF is interested in resolving the GPL compatibility issue. Their last word on the matter was that ASL 2.0 is GPL-compatible as far as they're concerned, and it's not their problem if someone thinks otherwise. Unlike most other projects with their own licenses (e.g. Mozilla, Ruby, OpenOffice.org), ASF doesn't allow to dual-license under GPL. This shows that they are not interested in GPL, to say the least.

Your flamebaiting, however, achieves nothing.

Wrong. It raises awareness of this issue. And it isn't just a flamebait: it is an opinion ("semi-open-source" part) supported by a fact ("can make no use of" part). I used not to care too much about GPL-incompatible licenses, too, until I realized how big of a problem it poses in the long term, especially when consolidated by organizations such as ASF.

And now it is a fact that I can't use SpamAssassin 3.0 in my GPLed open publishing engine, while it was possible with previous versions. I saw it coming, told about it, and now I got bitten by it. Why can't I complain about it?

Apache License

Posted Oct 6, 2004 13:06 UTC (Wed) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link]

Here is a suggestion which may be able to help you resolve the issue; you could release the next version of your open publishing engine under an Apache License 2.0/GPL dual-licence. All the best.

Dual license ASL/GPL

Posted Oct 6, 2004 19:09 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link]

It is both impossible (if I use SpamAssassin3 in my program, I can't distribute it under GPL at all, so the only option I have is to license it under ASL or simple BSD), and defeats the purpose of distributing my program under GPL in the first place (ASL is not copyleft and would allow for my code to be used in proprietary software, which is not acceptable to me). Thanks, but no, thanks. I'd rather use SpamAssassin 2.64 or other spam filter with GPL-compatible license.

Dual license ASL/GPL

Posted Oct 7, 2004 18:28 UTC (Thu) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link]

Another possibility would be to take the approach of MySQL AB. If you licence your work under the GPL with the FLOSS License Exception, you will be able to preserve the copyleft. Hope that's of some use.