Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Announcements Software Upgrades Apache

Apache License Updated to 2.0 160

Posted by CowboyNeal from the new-and-improved dept.
Roy_Fielding writes "The Apache Software Foundation has approved an update to the open source Apache License (Version 2.0) that will be mandated across all Apache projects starting on March 1st. I have been working on variations of this license for the past three years, trying to balance the many different goals of the revision. That includes making the license easier for non-ASF projects to use, improving compatibility with GPL-based software, allowing the license to be included by reference instead of listed in every file, clarifying the license on contributions, and requiring a patent license on contributions that necessarily infringe a contributor's own patents. The result is a license that is compatible with other open source licenses, such as the GPL, and yet still remains true to the original goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development across both nonprofit and commercial organizations." While it has yet to become OSI-certified, it will probably will be so Real Soon Now, and in the meantime it's fun to compare licenses.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apache License Updated to 2.0 More

Apache License Updated to 2.0

Comments Filter:

  • Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ashe Tyrael ( 697937 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @10:36AM (#8074694)
    If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

    I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be saying that if you sue anyone for breach of patent for something in apache, then you lose your patanet license?

    Can someone explain this onein plain english, please?
    • I think it is saying if you sue you can't use any patented work in an Apache project.
    • IAANAL, but I think this is a bit of a "SCO" clause... It doesn't say they loose their patent (which ASF obviously has no authority to do), it says that they loose their license for the work (Apache, for instance).

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 24, 2004 @10:46AM (#8074727)
      Looks like a standard tit-for-tat clause. Sue me for breaking patent rights and I will rescind your patent rights. Point being that companies using Apache intellectual property should be willing to loan back to the community any IP they develop, and if they aren't willing to make that contribution they shouldn't be a member of the Apache IP community.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @10:47AM (#8074734) Homepage

      I think it means that if you sue somebody alleging that, say, Apache, infringes upon a patent, you lose your license for Apache.

      If this is true, doesn't this mean that it's not Free Software and non-compliant with the Debian requirements? It seems to be placing a restriction on use rather than redistribution, and is therefore EULA-like.

      • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:30AM (#8074862)
        I think it means that if you sue somebody alleging that, say, Apache, infringes upon a patent, you lose your license for Apache.


        Not exactly. You don't lose your copyright license to Apache (which is what the Apache license mainly is), you lose the patent licenses. Picture this: suppose five companies contributed to Apache and thus granted you licenses to use their appropriate patents. You then sue one of these companies for patent infringement. The new Apache license means that in this case you may still redistribute Apache (since you still have a copyright license), but you've opened yourself up to being sued by any of the five companies for patent infringement, as you no longer have a license to those patents.

        If this is true, doesn't this mean that it's not Free Software and non-compliant with the Debian requirements? It seems to be placing a restriction on use


        So now you see why this is not the case. You may still use it, but you now run the risk of being sued over patents.

        IANAL, of course.
      • Apache.org runs on FreeBSD.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)

      by aTMsA ( 188604 )
      IANAL, but what it seems to mean in plain english is that you have a license to use all patents existing in the code shared(by the patent owner, of course), and, likewise, you have to grant licenses to the patents that you have and use in the code you add to Apache. If somebody starts threatening with patent lawsuits, he inmediately loses the automatic licenses to all other patents in the code. In practice that means you can no longer continue redistributing it, because you will be infringing many patents.

      I

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IIH ( 33751 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:03AM (#8074775)
      If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

      I'm no lawyer, but this seems to be saying that if you sue anyone for breach of patent for something in apache, then you lose your patanet license?

      I'm no lawyer either, but the way I read is that there is software in Apache that is covered by patents, but the owners have given people who use Apache a licence to use them. However, if someone decides to sue over one of their patents in Apache, then they lose the licence from the other patent holders, posibly leaving them open to an infringment suit themselves.

      In short, is seems to say: you play nice, we'll play nice, and we'll all play with everyone's toys, but if you won't let someone play with your toys, then everyone else will gang up on you and not let you play with any of theirs either.

    • AKA (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If IBM sues anyone saying that apache is a patent violation, then they have given up their right to use any other patents incorporated into apache. So, if redhat patents something and incorporates it into apache, thus giving away a license to use it in any apache licensed works, IBM's right to use this patent will cease.
    • Basically, if you patent-sue (or counter-patent-sue) anyone because e.g. Apache is violating one of your patents, then you're not allowed to use any patents being used in Apache.

      So if Apache is using patented protocol X, and you sue them because you think they're infringing on your patented file format Y, then you are no longer granted use of patented protocol X anymore. You could still use Apache, as long as you don't use patented protocol X.

      I think.

      --Dan
    • It means that if you sue a contributor based on patent infringement, you cannot benefit from any patent licenses shared with you via the Apache license. More simply, it means if you cause trouble you can't benefit from the shared work. It's a condition of use.
  • Can someone explain to me some specific problems there were with the old license? Not having it in every file I am sure makes things a bit easier, but what else does this do exactly? The original poster didn't make this too clear, and I don't exactly go around studing licenses unless I know it conflicts with something for me personally.
    • For one they have added a clause where any code redistributed automatically grants patent licenses to use it, and if you try to litigate some of them, you lose the licenses to other patents not owned by you in the code. In the face of the current legal environment(SCO, code patent extortion, etc...), I think it's a good preventive measure to add it to the license.

    • Why not... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why not just cross-license Apache under the GPL, Apache license, MPL, LGPL, apple public source license, helix public source license, and NPL?
      • To me that seems a good idea, but it would require the agreement of all the current copyright holders...and some of them might not like the GPL for some reason.

        OTOH, it's nice to have a major project with a separate license. Particularly if it's one that is GPL compatible. If there exist multiple licenses that achieve the same ends via differing means, then it is less useful for any one of them to be challenged. Which makes challenge less likely. And which also gives us a bolt-hole in case some legal t
        • OTOH, it's nice to have a major project with a separate license.

          You mean like the BSD license used by three major BSD projects? Or the MIT license used by the major XFree86 project?
          • I do mean that, but the BSD and MIT licenses aim at different purposes. The GPL license intends that derivitive code will remain open, and this isn't the goal of either the BSD or the MIT license, as I understand them.

      • AKA the Mozilla approach. Don't like our license? We'll give you a few more to choose from!
    • The old license included an "obnoxious" advertising clause, similar to the original BSD license, saying that you have to prominently inform users that your derived work includes Apache code (while, on the other hand, you may not use Apache-derivedness for advertising, or even in the product name, so that "Powered by Apache!" or "Reivec's Apache-Based SuperHTTPD" were forbidden)

      * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
      * if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
      *

  • Different definition of fun (Score:4, Funny)

    by Smitty825 ( 114634 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @10:41AM (#8074712) Homepage Journal
    in the meantime it's fun to compare licenses.

    I don't know about CowboyNeal, but I sure have a different definition of fun than he does!

    • Here I was thinking how much fun it was wading through diffs to try to find the subtile bug I introduced last night by coding 15 minutes past the take-your-hands-away-from-the-keyboard-and-no-one- gets-hurt point, and thinking to my self "this code may be brilliant but I won't know for sure until I remember (and document) why I wrote it this way".

      And all this time I could have been comparing licences! Doh!

      -- MarkusQ

  • And yet... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... .com minus punct> on Saturday January 24, 2004 @10:42AM (#8074715) Journal
    After something of the same journey with licenses for my own open source work, I finally came to the conclusion that Richard Stallman had seen the inevitable truth clearly when he designed the GPL, namely that free software thrives best when there is a definite barrier between it and commercial software.

    Our software now uses a dual license model in which it's either licensed for free under the GPL, or licensed for a fee under a standard commercial license.

    Without exageration, nor wanting to start a religious war, I believe the GPL is an astonishingly robust answer to the question of how to share creative works without subsidising commercial interests that inevitably seek to quash the independent creative spirit.
    • Yep, the strength of it relies on that it's not restricting your rights to the code, but enhacing them, so it'll be very strong in front of a judge.

      Moreover, tough it got critiques about being 'viral', etc, it has the mechanisms to ensure the code doesn't get coopted in comercial code, and closed. If you want to use it, you have to give back, and that's something that can only strenghten free software.

      • it has the mechanisms to ensure the code doesn't get coopted in comercial code, and closed. If you want to use it, you have to give back, and that's something that can only strenghten free software.

        Precisely! And exactly the reason I've always in the end chosen either GPL or LGPL license for my Open Source work as opposed to any Apache licenses. The point you make about returning contributions cannot be stressed enough.

        At least for me it is the key reason to use (L)GPL licenses.

    • Re:And yet... (Score:1, Troll)

      by Sentry21 ( 8183 )
      I believe the GPL is an astonishingly robust answer to the question of how to share creative works without subsidising commercial interests that inevitably seek to quash the independent creative spirit.

      I dunno. The way I look at it is that I write software for the purposes of writing software. I write it for fun, or because I want it. If some corporation I share my code with wants to turn around and sell my software, then more power to them. If they think my software is better than what they can write, t

      • Re:And yet... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kenneth Stephen ( 1950 )

        Well....yes! This whole BSD style vs GPL style licenses really boils down to individual preferences. Your attitude and reason for choosing the ASF / BSD licenses is perfectly valid and I have no quarrel with you over that. I myself would prefer the GPL for all the reasons that the BSD-style license advocates disparage. I do want freedom on my terms or not all all, but then again, isnt that the definition of freedom? I mean, would it make a slave "free" if the slave-owner declared that he is "free" while con

        • I mean, would it make a slave "free" if the slave-owner declared that he is "free" while continuing to subjugate him? It is the slave's point of view that is the ONLY point of view to consider when deciding if he is free.

          Your analogy makes little sense, since the thing being freed is an inanimate object ( the code ). it can't really "decide" what it wants.

          But even so, it is still flawed. If the code is the slave, and the GPL and BSD licenses are ways of freeing it, an appropriate anaolgy to the GPL woul

          • Sigh. Do they not teach comprehension anymore in schools?

            • If you want to use some other license, please go ahead and use it. I just told you why I prefer the GPL. I didnt ask you to follow my choice.
            • Freedom is not applied to the code, but to the person who wishes to do something useful with the code. The code is not something that has or lacks freedom - its the possessor of the code that has or lacks the freedom.
          • Thomas Jefferson said:

            "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

            I think we have here the essence of the GNU GPL.

            You have to accept that for some people (among whom the FSF) turning a free sowtware into proprietary software is really committing such an aggression on the equal rights of the whole society. And so there is here a limit to the freedom they want to give to other people. Just like you don't want

    • After something of the same journey with licenses for my own open source work, I finally came to the conclusion that Richard Stallman had seen the inevitable truth clearly when he designed the GPL, namely that free software thrives best when there is a definite barrier between it and commercial software.

      Then your journey is not yet over because the GNU General Public License (GPL) is not a "barrier between [GPL-covered software] and commercial software" nor is it "open source". The GNU GPL was writt

      • The GPL is a license that is commercially netural insofar as you can charge for work, but it is definitely not a commercial license. It is a constitution that clearly separates the interests of commercial software producers (who sell software and therefore rely on closed source) and the wide range of people who produce software for other reasons (hobby, indirect need, whatever).

        I'm also surprised you say it has nothing to do with the open source movement. Open source is about promoting the values of soft

        • The GPL is a license that is commercially netural insofar as you can charge for work, but it is definitely not a commercial license. It is a constitution that clearly separates the interests of commercial software producers (who sell software and therefore rely on closed source) and the wide range of people who produce software for other reasons (hobby, indirect need, whatever).

          Charging for distributing the program was the point of the second essay I pointed you to (not just charging for improving th

  • Software patents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Elektroschock ( 659467 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @10:57AM (#8074753)
    The Apache License 2 is just a workaround for a real problem. Software patents are bad for development and bad for the economy. The US Federal State Commission called for change in a recent report, the benefits of software patents are falsified by emirical ressearch.

    However, as software patents serve for the benefit of patent attorneys the institutions are intrested in an extension of the system, by widening the scope of patentability regardless of an economic foundation. Politicians like this quantitative patent approach, the result are many trivial patents of low quality and disfunction of the patent system atlarge. Many low quality patents endanger our information society. So it is nice to see that organisation like Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure [ffii.org] build a counter-force to patent lawyer interest groups in Europe. So far the lobby work against software patents and the Eurolinux petition [noepatents.org] were very succesful. In my opinion we need a world wide movement in order to avoid Eolas vs. MS oder Amazonvs.Barnes&Noble ecc. will happen again. The GNU Public License is incompatible with Patent law and most projects and SME cannot afford to get patents. They, the innovators, don't want or need software patents.
    • the benefits of software patents are falsified by emirical ressearch.

      Were the patents registered in the Emirates? [cia.gov]

    • 100% correct and in agreement (Score:4, Interesting)

      by occam ( 20826 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @12:50PM (#8075271)
      Software (et al.) patents are essentially:

      - legalized monopolies, and monopolies are bad.
      - legal minefields for software initiatives, and mines are extremely counterproductive in (real and analogous) terms.
      - an involuntary subsidy by the software industry for the self-serving legal industry.
      - an impediment to open (and commercial) software development.
      - an idea based solution to an implementation driven market (ideas are cheap; implementation is hard).
      - a backwards implementation benefitting manipulators of the system, not the brilliance in innovation.
      - an upside down system benefitting those with big pockets (and fat lawyers) instead of the underdogs (for whom patents were very originally intended).
      - a joke in any industry (e.g., software) where production is a mere disk copy away (i.e., there is no manufacturing impediment in software, so even the original concept of patent protection is absurd)
      - completely absurd to implement in theory (due to impossibility of any patent examiner's job) and practice considering the infinitude of like ideas in different forms (with patents as with novels, plots, etc.)
      - absurd since software is a written form of thought --- and you shouldn't be able to patent (anything but especially) thoughts.

      That's just off the top of my head.

      IOW, patents are a Lehman (prounounced "lemon") law perpetuated so the legal industry can forcefeed carcinogenic lemonade to the software industry.

      • legalized monopolies, and monopolies are bad

        Without monopolies, we wouldn't have a coherent phone system infrastructure, or a reasonable electrical system. Regulated monopolies are necessary for infrastructure-type systems. What's bad are blanket, uninformed statements.

        With regard to patents in particular, the concept is completely necessary to promote innovation. It seems sad (not to mention annoying) to have to explain it yet again every time an article on patents appears on Slashdot.

        If you're a

        • Patents are roadblocks to progress. There's nothing "necessary" about them at all. I would venture to say (in your own condescending tone) that "necessary" does not mean what you think it means, Paul.

          Software patents are ludicrous. The establishment (legal industry) is in conflict of interest by perpetuating them. The software industry fought them when they were about to be institutionalized. A panel of lawyers from the USPTO headed by the bureaucratic Bruce Lehmann instituted them over the software i

          • Patents are roadblocks to progress.

            They very well may be roadblocks to your progress of leeching off of somebody else's idea (by definition) instead of inventing something new.

            The ... legal industry ... is in conflict of interest by perpetuating [software patents].

            I don't see the conflict of interest since it's not their business to get rid of patents. If it were and they were also perpetuating them, then it would be a conflict. Sorry to burst your conspiracy-theory bubble.

            To anyone [sic] accomp

            • >leeching off of somebody else's idea (by definition)

              You do not understand patents. Patents are a legal monopoly granted based on patent application. They do not prevent anyone from having the same idea. Under current law, they do not even strive to guarantee the idea is original or novel. Many people can have the same idea, but the patent grants only one the monopoly.

              See a problem? Especially when nothing should be patented.

              By contrast, copyright allows for more than one person to express the sa
        • /*If you're an inventor and you invent something useful, after having spent many hours and money, why should somebody else be free to come along and simply steal your idea? Patents exist specifically to grant limited-time monopolies to reward inventors for their effort. If you're another inventor and want to cash-in on a patented invention, well it forces your hand to invent something even better or perhaps even revolutionary. Again, patents promote innovation.
          */

          However, the system does not work in the sof

          • The current patent system is designed for manufacturing, not for a dynamic industry such as the software industry

            It certainly is not designed exclusively for manufacturing. Easy example: the paper clip. It's a simple invention designed to hold paper together. It doesn't manufacture anything. (There was also a different patent for a machine to bend wire into a paper clip, but that's irrelevant to the point at hand.)

            Copyrights protects us very well

            Hardly. Another easy example: desktop GUIs. Back

            • Hardly. Another easy example: desktop GUIs. Back in 1984, Apple had copyrights on all their code to produce the Mac GUI. Microsoft comes along with Windows and copies many of the ideas.* Apple tried to stretch copyright law into patent law to stop Microsoft and failed. An idea like a desktop GUI isn't protected at all by copyright.

              And if Apple (or Xerox) had patented the GUI, the amount of innovation in GUI development would have been miniscule because it would have been hard-wired to a single closed pl

              • And if Apple (or Xerox) had patented the GUI, the amount of innovation in GUI development would have been miniscule because it would have been hard-wired to a single closed platform.

                I specifically said "desktop GUI." Perhaps because it wasn't patented, we've been using the same basic interface for 20 years so because nobody was forced to invent something different. The irony is that the GUI innovation has been miniscule overall and you don't realize it. Will we still be using a desktop metaphor in the

                • I don't Get it (Score:1, Interesting)

                  by Anonymous Coward
                  I don't get it. I truly don't believe that ideas are as valuable as you make them out to be.
                  I value the hard work of the implementor much more than the guy who happened to patent an idea that has probably been thought of by dozens of other smart guys but who aren't so egotistical to think that they are the first ever to imagine it.
                  I'd like to see a software patent that is truly innovative. But I don't believe one exists. Take the patent you applied for from your Liquid Audio days. From the description, it s
      • - a joke in any industry (e.g., software) where production is a mere disk copy away (i.e., there is no manufacturing impediment in software, so even the original concept of patent protection is absurd)

        The pharmacutical industry is a lot like the software industry. There is an extremely low cost of production and an extremely high cost of development. Especially in the pharmacutical industry where companies must go through expensive clinical trials and the FDA approval process.

        Patents are responsible fo

        • Re:100% correct and in agreement (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The software industry is nothing like the pharmacutical industry.

          There is no notion of a garage developer in the pharmacutical industry.

          Scientific research in the software industry is often made by universities and is given away.

          The monies involved in research and development do not compare.

  • Is it actually GPL compatible? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Carl ( 12719 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:02AM (#8074772) Homepage
    It would be really great if this license was GPL compatible since that would allow much more cooperation and use of Apache licensed works in other free software projects. But is it actually GPL-compatible?

    I couldn't find the Apache 2.0 license on the FSF license list [fsf.org]. The only "official" remark seems to be the following email thread [apache.org] which says:

    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.

    Maybe it was a bit premature to announce this license without waiting for OSI approval and requesting feedback from the FSF. Of course the Apache group can do whatever they want without asking for approval and blessing from other Open Source and Free Software groups. But it would have been nice to try to cooperate a bit more.

    • Re:Is it actually GPL compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:20AM (#8074831)
      But it would have been nice to try to cooperate a bit more.

      Well, not to flame or anything, but cooperation works both ways. The FSF appears (to me) to be completely unbending in its interpretation of the spirit of the GPL, and what is and isn't compatible with it. They'll help you to change your licence to make it compatible, but they won't shift a millimetre on their own position.

      Okay, so their philosphical and moral stance more or less requires that behaviour, but it does seem a little unfair to criticise other groups for not cooperating.

      • Re:Is it actually GPL compatible? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Tarrio ( 151332 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @12:03PM (#8075054) Homepage

        When you make a work consisting in the combination of works covered by two different licenses, the resulting work must be licensed under the terms of both licenses at the same time. If they have conflicting clauses, then the licenses are incompatible and the work is not distributable at all.

        The GPL says a couple of things about this: in clause 2 it says: "[...] when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." In clause 4 it says "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License." And in clause 6 it says "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

        In plain English this means: when you make the combined work I talked about before, the whole work must be distributed under the terms of both licenses combined; but as the GPL requests that it be distributed under the terms of the GPL (no less, no more), if the "other" license includes restrictions the GPL does not have, then both licenses are incompatible and you cannot distribute the resulting work.

        So, whether your license is GPL-compatible is not just a matter of opinion. You only have to ask yourself: "does this license have any restrictions the GPL does not have?" If it does, then the license is GPL-incompatible. If it does not, then the license is GPL-compatible.

      • Okay, so their philosphical and moral stance more or less requires that behaviour, but it does seem a little unfair to criticise other groups for not cooperating.

        It's not unfair. The FSF is extremely easy to predict and understand. They'd prefer that you use the GPL. Period. They have no interest in making their license compatible with others. They'd prefer that you use the GPL and that's the end of it. Have you noticed that it's all the other licenses that are striving to be compatible with the G

      • The FSF appears (to me) to be completely unbending in its interpretation of the spirit of the GPL, and what is and isn't compatible with it. They'll help you to change your licence to make it compatible, but they won't shift a millimetre on their own position. Okay, so their philosphical and moral stance more or less requires that behaviour, but it does seem a little unfair to criticise other groups for not cooperating.

        Agreed. my point was that it would have been nice of the Apache hackers to send a litt

        • Agreed. my point was that it would have been nice of the Apache hackers to send a little note to important groups like the OSI, Debian and the FSF to announce their intend to use this license.

          I don't know about OSI and FSF, but they did request feedback from the Debian project. It was mentioned in one of the Debian Weekly News.

        • Re:Is it actually GPL compatible? (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Drafts of the Apache 2.0 license was posted to the Debian legal lists and Eben Moglen has also reviewed it and posted comments on the ASF licensing lists.

          All of their feedback was incorporated into this final draft.
      • Unbending in its interpretation of the GPL? Without any sarcasm intended: What would it help you if they would be willing to adjust their interpretation of the license? I mean, they interpret the way they expect it to be interpreted by courts. If it came to an actual lawsuit, if the FSF had "adjusted" their interpretation to fit yours, would that make you happier if you lost? -- I mean, of course the FSF can't be sure that courts will hold 100% the same interpretation as they do on all counts, but they reas
    • Eben Moglen (FSF lawyer) was specifically spoken with, in person, to confirm the FSF interpretation of GPL compatibility of ASL 2.0 and he confirmed that the FSF view is thatit is compatible. Anyone else can, or course, challenge this in court if they want, but at least the FSF thinks it is compatible =)
    • Regarding announcement, well, there has been a mail list on apache.org. Even so, I was suprised to see it live, because I thought it didnt go to a vote in the members meeting at apache con. Certainly debian and others were providing detailed feedback before the conference.

      I think it is GPL compatible -Roy Fielding of Apache
      says [apache.org] that Eblen Moglen of FSF has looked at it and is happy.

  • looks trivialy GPL-incompatible (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:07AM (#8074786) Homepage
    They tried "improving compatibility with GPL-based software", but is it compatible or not?

    From a quick read it seems to be a valid Free Software license, but clause 4.d may make it incompatible with the GPL. This would be unfortunate for such a trivial condition. GPL doesn't allow placing additional restrictions on distribution, so is requiring a NOTICE file, and additional restriction?

    The patents section might also be GPL-incompatible, but it might be GPLv3-compatible when GPLv3 comes out.

    Has anyone seen of any comments from FSF about this?

    Altogether, it's a good license, and vastly superior to the last proposal which was ~100 pages long. (slight exageration)

    • I've been digging through archives, and it seems FSF's Eben Moglen hasn't made public comments about this version of the proposed ASL-2.0, BUT, he has commented on a previous version:

      Ebens November 16th comments [apache.org]

      Well worth a read, he mentions some of the changes being considered for GPLv3.

      For anyone interested in GPLv3. It was supposed to be ready for early 2003, but after a few delays it had to be delayed for a year as Eben had already arranged to have a year off. I think he'll be back soon, so ma

  • Lawschool? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ciryon ( 218518 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:44AM (#8074925) Journal
    Is going to lawschool a requirement for beeing a geek nowadays?

    Ciryon
    • It's a requirement if you want to publish or use software, or anything similar, without getting in legal trouble. For just being a geek it is more of a hindrance, because you loose the fun in mindless, underinformed license flamewars.

  • question about apache license (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gargle ( 97883 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:45AM (#8074928) Homepage
    Does the Apache license allow commercial distribution of code based on the apache code, in the case where the modified source code is included as part of the commercial package, but the end-user is prohibited from redistributing the source code?
    • Because the license indemnifies each contributor under every legal theory, they released any claim against commercial distribution. Also by stating that any contributor has a right to create a derivative, a creator can file a copyright in the derivative and obtain a right of distribution under Title 17 of the US Code. One does not get the copyright in the elements they did not create and Apache could argue that the contributor infringed if they do not site the appropriate (c) notice for those elements. Th
    • Yes.

      You are permitted to add proprietary code to the apache software, and to sell object code only licenses for the combined package. There is no requirement that these licenses be transferable either.

      Because of this, Apache License code is broadly accepted in the commercial world, while many companies will not touch GPL or LGPL'd code.

      The price for this acceptance is that somebody else can make money off of your work without giving you anything in return.
    • I read the Apache 2.0 license a little more carefully, and compared this with Apache license 1.1. Licenses may be found here: http://www.apache.org/licenses/

      The last para of Apache 2.0, Section 4 says that:

      You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work o

  • Strange (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Iplaw-dc ( 742360 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @11:48AM (#8074948) Homepage Journal
    What is unusual about this license is that it grants a license to the copyright. Most licenses only grant a right contained and protected by copyright law. For example, a company may grant a license to distribute a good, or to reproduce elements of an original work of authorship. I have never heard of being able to license a copyright. We assign and transfer copyrights and we license trademarks and rights granted under tm, (c), and or patent. I wonder if this agreement is really valid. Lets say that someone modifies some code and then registers the copyright and does not inform the Library of Congress about the Apache license. Moreover, what if the "thief" then files suit against derivative authors. The problem here is that fed law trumps the law of contracts and under federal law you can share copyright in a work- it's called joint ownership. One suggestion is that Apache could grant a nonexclusive right to create derivative works so long as they meet the highest standards in the industry. It would be interesting to see if Apache filed the copyright through the LOC? It might be interesting to look into how foreign civil law treats software because it is more natural law/moral rights based and does not allow corporate entities to own the full ip rights of a creator.

    • What is unusual about this license is that it grants a license to the copyright. Most licenses only grant a right contained and protected by copyright law. For example, a company may grant a license to distribute a good, or to reproduce elements of an original work of authorship.

      Huh? That's just what the Apache License does:

      "[...] each Contributor hereby grants to You a [...] copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Wor

      • I understand your point about potential ambiguities if it simply referred to license without a reference to something eles (such as code, not copyright). Still, I have looked at thousands of licenses and none use the term copyright license, which sets forth each contributor can add his or her own copyright notice to the derivative or REPRODUCTION (which could be exact). A copyright is transferred or assigned via contract, that's why I wonder if this license is valid. You can't license a copyright and clai

        • Still, I have looked at thousands of licenses and none use the term copyright license, [...]

          I just searched Google for "copyright license" (with quotes, i.e. for that phrase) and it found about 70300 hits, although at least the first few pages don't seem to actually contain that phrase.

          One thing I know for sure is that in German civil law, it doesn't matter what people call a contract, what matters is what they actually agreed on. E.g. if you provide a service but call the accompanying contract a sales co

  • IANAL but (Score:3, Funny)

    by sniggly ( 216454 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @12:01PM (#8075036) Journal
    it's fun to compare licenses.

    IANAL but you sure sound like one :)

  • "...and in the meantime it's fun to compare licenses."

    You're a real fan of root canals and Britney Spears too, aren't you?

  • How does a big project do a license change? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kegetys ( 659066 ) on Saturday January 24, 2004 @01:07PM (#8075389) Homepage
    This might be a tad offtopic but anyway, a while ago I was wondering how a big OSS project (like Apache) does a license change? If there are dozens of people involved who have contributed their work to the project under license X, wouldn't you need to ask each and every one of those people if you want to change that license in any way?

    • Yes, they would have to amend the former license and both parties would have to sign the new amendment. Organizations and companies do this all of the time. They tend to persuade the former parties to accept the amendments because if they do not, they will not be able to benefit from the "new developments."
    • Well, if you get the contributors to sign over their copyrights from the very beginning, you would never have to worry about this. If the code was owned by the Apache Foundation, then the Apache Foundation has full right to change the license.

      It's the same reason why the FSF requires copyright assignment, and why the Linux kernel will NEVER EVER have a license other than GPLv2.
  • One of the greatest virtues of the old Apache license was that it was not "viral." If a viral license can be stamped on the code at will, it may eventually lead to a situation in which one must be subjected to the restrictions of the GPL to use the work. This would not be a good thing.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Close