| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Apache LicenseApache LicensePosted Oct 6, 2004 12:34 UTC (Wed) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487)In reply to: Apache License by andre Parent article: Gluecode Contributes BPM Engine to Apache Software Foundation
Not the same thing. BSD license, by design, allows to distribute the code under more restrictive terms. This ability is the main reason to use BSD license over GPL, so it's perfectly within both the terms and the intent of BSD license to distribute the combined work under more restrictive GPL.
(Log in to post comments)
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 12:57 UTC (Wed) by andre (guest, #11559) [Link] i'm talking about the reverse situation. i can't use gpl'd software on bsd licensed software. so while the gpl does a good job in spreading gnu/freedom, it also does a good job in forcing developers who use other opensource licenses (which are arguably more free) to reinvent the wheel over and over again.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 15:44 UTC (Wed) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link] You can USE GPL-licensed software with BSD licensed software in the same was as you can use GPL-ed code with proprietary code. What you can not do is to re-distribute GPL-ed code under BSD license. Due to the nature of GPL the combined work has to be redistributed under GPL but at least there is an option for redistribution.
The problem with Apache License 2.0 is that although in practice it is as unrestrictive as BSD license, there is no way to redistribute APL and GPL code together at all due to the patent clause.
Another problem is that the simple fact of using the APL software places an additional restriction on the user as he has to give up the right to initiate a patent litigation even for defense purposes to continue to use the software. Neither GPL nor BSD licenses place any restrictions on the software usage.
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 15:54 UTC (Wed) by AJWM (guest, #15888) [Link] If the other licenses really are "more free", why are developers then compelled to "reinvent the wheel over and over again"?One "more free" implementation ought to be enough, eh? Oh, unless somebody makes their helpful extensions proprietary, and then those have to be reinvented over again. I'm sorry, what was your point again? (Oh, and you can use GPL'd software on BSD licensed software -- it just means that the combined work must be distributed, if at all, under the GPL.)
Apache License Posted Oct 6, 2004 17:58 UTC (Wed) by andre (guest, #11559) [Link] > One "more free" implementation ought to be enough, eh?> Oh, unless somebody makes their helpful extensions > proprietary, and then those have to be reinvented over again.
It's *their* extentions, which were written by *them*. It is thus *their* right to do whatever they want. Do you think it is right to impose a license on code you have not written?
> Oh, and you can use GPL'd software on BSD licensed software -- it
oh, thanks for informing. so "it just means that"? phew... so all i need to do now is change the license of *my* code because someone else wants to choose the license for me.
and i'm sure someone will say "well, don't use gpl'd software then". fine. but isn't that the same option i have when it comes to proprietary software, i.e., not using it?
or i can use the gpl code and not release it. wow, this is so useful.
|
|
||||||||||||