Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apache says ASL2.0 is GPL-compatible

CmdrTaco posted more than 10 years ago | from the well-of-course-they-do dept.

Apache 384

Steve Loughran writes "The ASF board have put up on the Apache Web site, a page rebutting claims that the new ASL2.0 license is incompatible with the GPL, claims made by on an FSF page and covered in Slashdot last week.The key points are (1) The interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF, it is designed to be rigorously defendable in a court of law. (2) Rather than look at opinions about compatibility, people should look at the ASF2.0 and GPL licenses to see if they really are compatible. (3) If you look at the two licenses, they really are compatible. This means there is nothing to stop you linking your [L]GPL apps against apache libraries, shipping them with apache applications, and the like." Of course, this is still up to debate.

cancel ×

384 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sony announces... Another frosty one? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8374961)

For scc!

YOU SUCK THE FINEST COCK IN ALL THE WORLD (-1)

(TK3)Dessimat0r (669834) | more than 10 years ago | (#8374979)

But you succeed it.

Well done, my good man. Trollkore salutes you.

And by compatible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8374967)

They mean "who cares?" Let the lawyers battle it out, and I'll be standing over here when they're done.

All arguments aside... (5, Funny)

sirReal.83. (671912) | more than 10 years ago | (#8374969)

1) The interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF, it is designed to be rigorously defendable in a court of law.
(2) Rather than look at opinions about compatibility, people should look at the ASF2.0 and GPL licenses to see if they really are compatible.
(2) If you look at the two licenses, they really are compatible.


I'd learn how to count first.

Re:All arguments aside... (0, Offtopic)

smackjer (697558) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375064)

Flamebait? Must have been moderated by the submitter. ;)

MOD PARENT FUNNY!

Re:All arguments aside... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375093)

You forgot to add:

(3) Profit!!!

Point 2 (3, Insightful)

nuggz (69912) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375103)

Looks like point 2 is repeated with two different phrasings.
Perhaps the following summary is more clear.

2- Rather then listen to opinions, see for yourself. If you look at the two licenses they really are compatible.

Its actually 100% irrelevant (5, Insightful)

Alan Cox (27532) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375348)

The ASF statement actually is really useful, because in essence they are saying they think its GPL compatible, so there are no issues on their side.

Its irrelevant however because Apache is built upon a set of non GPL compliant libraries like OpenSSL and always has been. "Apache 2.0 not GPL", well big deal: Apache 1.0 not GPL either.

You can probably build a non https:// Apache without a few other modules that is GPLable but everyone I've dealt with seems quite happy with the state of apache and the license it uses right now.

This is very different to the XFree 4.4 case where the rules got changed on people.

Its very much like "Windows 98 not GPL".. not news.

GPL... (1, Flamebait)

ProtonMotiveForce (267027) | more than 10 years ago | (#8374973)

Simply sucks. It's a pain in the ass.

If you're all into control - and it is about control regardless of what the FSF zealots will tell you, then by all means use it.

If you want to contribute code to the world and make it useful and extensible - use MIT/BSD/some other truly free license. _Your_ code will always remain free, what do you care if someone else adds to it?

Re:GPL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375048)

what do care what licenses other people choose? it's _their_ code and _they_ should choose a license they a comfortable with.

that's exactly the same thing like the stupid users which tell us programmers which features we should add. fuck them all - i am coding for fun and _no_one_ will tell me which license to choose or which feature to add.

Re:GPL... (4, Insightful)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375096)

what do care what licenses other people choose?

True, everyone chooses the license they want, the one they are comfortable with. In the OSS world, there are a lot of licenses and the GPL is probably the less free of all, that's all the parent is saying.

fuck them all - i am coding for fun and _no_one_ will tell me which license to choose or which feature to add

There is a time to code for fun, and - as you will see when you will be a little more mature - there is a time for reward, or some form of retribution. If you "fuck all" your users, you will get no reward. You don't even need to get a license because you probably don't care about any distribution in the first place.

Re:GPL... (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375297)

If you "fuck all" your users, you will get no reward.

If you use a BSD license, you won't get any reward either. However, the "fuck all" approach seems to have worked ok for Theo so far. We'll see how Linus becomes in his old age.

Because some people DO care. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375109)

"_Your_ code will always remain free, what do you care if someone else adds to it?"

Because some people DO care. If they want to share their code but only with people who will share their modifications (non-internal use only), that is their right.

The different licenses support different developmental methodologies and agendas.

S/He who writes the code chooses the license and if you don't like that, then write your own code.

Re:GPL... (2, Insightful)

October_30th (531777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375113)

If you want to contribute code to the world and make it useful and extensible - use MIT/BSD/some other truly free license.

Unfortunately distributing non-GPLd software with Linux is asking for trouble. Linux is the best-selling open software product and choosing any other license than GPL means an extra hurdle for your software.

But I guess that's exactly the kind of "freedom" RMS likes. Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.

Re:GPL... (3, Insightful)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375266)

>Even in Soviet Russia you did not have to be a member of the Communist Party. However, that meant settling for low-level jobs and general discrimination.

yes, whereas in America your political opinion had no effect on the jobs you could have did.. oh, er....

Re:GPL... (4, Interesting)

runderwo (609077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375115)

Wow, really insightful. Could be summed up as "gimme gimme gimme the code with no strings attached, your personal opinion as the creator of the work doesn't matter".

How about looking at it in terms of economic motivation? For certain types of people (arguably, most people), the GPL provides incentive to create free software where otherwise one wouldn't have bothered. Without the GPL, some of them might begrudgingly release code under a public domain-ish license, but most these people would either be coding proprietary software or not at all.

Which world would you rather have? A world with the GPL as a licensing option, or a world without it? The first world has more free software available, software that respects the rights of the user instead of trying to control the user through EULAs and insidious distribution terms. Regardless of the moaning of anti-GPL types like yourself I'll take the first world where I have more choice as a user and as a creative producer. Begrudging others of their choices when it comes at no cost to you is simply ridiculous. Nobody is going to be sympathetic to your whining because you can't have others' work on YOUR terms.

Re:GPL... (0, Troll)

SFEley (743605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375315)

Which world would you rather have? A world with the GPL as a licensing option, or a world without it? The first world has more free software available, software that respects the rights of the user instead of trying to control the user through EULAs and insidious distribution terms.

False dilemma. The existence of other effective free licenses that achieve the goals you describe shows that the GPL isn't strictly needed. It may once have been needed, when there wasn't anything else, and its revolutionary attitude may have inspired more hackers to action than a more relaxed license would have, but today it's no longer the world's salvation. It's the guy still wearing the hippie shirt and singing Vietnam protest songs all by himself, never quite noticing that his friends grew up and bought Volvos.

Re:GPL... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375380)

What planet are you living on? The GPL DISincentivizes software development, you moron.
How does such an illogical, rambling, obviously wrong thing end up modded to 5? Oh, wait, it's the politically correct pro-GPL ("Get Programmers Laid-off) party line... Jesus, but hasn't anybody ever here had to worry about making payroll, especially in today's "let's outsource programming" environment?????

Shutup (2, Interesting)

codepunk (167897) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375121)

I will release code under any damn license I please. Yes I do prefer to keep some sort of control "meaning some asshole cannot sell me back my own code" so I CHOOSE to release under the GPL instead of a BSD license.

Re:Shutup (3, Insightful)

AntiOrganic (650691) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375217)

"Some asshole" is perfectly capable of selling you your own code under the GPL, he just has to make the source available. What do you think commercial Linux distributions do?

Re:Shutup (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375339)

I will release code under any damn license I please. Yes I do prefer to keep some sort of control "meaning some asshole cannot sell me back my own code" so I CHOOSE to release under the GPL instead of a BSD license.

Basically, you're saying that you are too greedy to let the world use your code. You don't give a damn about the freedom the GPL provides.

Sad.

Re:GPL... (2, Insightful)

pompousjerk (210156) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375150)

The GPL isn't about the freedom of the people who use it, it's about the freedom of the *software*.

Of course, 'free' isn't probably the best word here; the Creative Commons [creativecommons.org] licenses hit the nail on the head with "share alike".

Re:GPL... (1)

El (94934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375174)

use MIT/BSD/some other truly free license. _Your_ code will always remain free, what do you care if someone else adds to it?

Until SCO sues you, claiming that some third party has merged UNIX(TM) code with your code, therefore now all your codebase is belong to Darl.

Re:GPL... (1)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375180)

If I'm giving away my code, what's wrong with expecting the same thing in return? Is it that you don't like the GPL, or that you wanted to use something released as GPL but were unwilling to share? You've lost nothing if I don't release my code. Thus, giving away my code with restrictions doesn't take away anything from anyone. It's not like people who use the GPL haven't heard of BSD style licenses.

Having released significant projects under the GPL, the only problems we've ever had are companies complaining they couldn't steal our code without negotiating another license (duh), and people who wanted us to adopt a license that included an advertising clause for their university (um, no thanks).

I usually use BSD on definitions and small libraries. That's because BSD is an excellent license if all you want is compatibility and don't care about building community. If you want to understand community, look at the relative size and "forkiness" of Linux vs. BSD development communities.

Re:GPL... (1)

Tennguin (553870) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375285)

This is nonesense. It has always been RMS contention that the free sharing of source code is the crux of the free software movement. If someone is allowed to take open source code, add useful propriatary enhancements to it and fork it as an entirely closed source product the original authors work could be lost forever as the fork is adopted over the open sourced solution and contines down its own independant development path. The BSD license and others like it do not protect the software its attched to from being hijacked.

You know what ? (4, Insightful)

bmajik (96670) | more than 10 years ago | (#8374975)

If there's a debate at all, it's not worth wasting your time thinking about it.

This is why people like the BSD license.

This is why OpenBSD forks code when others play stupid license tricks. If anyone has to think about what a license might mean, then they're not busy fixing bugs. Pseudo-Clever-Licensing keeps lawyers happy and programmers unproductive.

Re:You know what ? (1)

ProtonMotiveForce (267027) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375008)

Exactly. Or the MIT license.

If you code for the fun or to provide the world with something, use BSD/MIT license.

If you're trying to make a pointless statement, by all means use GPL.

Re:You know what ? (0, Troll)

utahjazz (177190) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375077)

Exactly. Or the Apache license.

If you code for the fun or to provide the world with something, use BSD/MIT/Apache license.

If you're trying to make a pointless statement, by all means use GPL.

Re:You know what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375129)

*sigh*
and you wonder why jobs get outsourced overseas and programmers get systemmatically screwed at every turn.

If you don't take an interest in politics you get screwed, that's life. The GPL is geek politics and if Linux was under a BSD license it would be just as sidelined as FreeBSD.

Re:You know what ? (3, Insightful)

Syberghost (10557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375137)

If there's a debate at all, it's not worth wasting your time thinking about it.

Totally agree, but:

This is why people like the BSD license.

Like BSD has never had licensing issues wind up in court.

Re:You know what ? (1)

BdosError (261714) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375318)

a) That was not a problem with the type of license, it was a dispute over proper ownership of code
2) It's resolved now, it's all better.

Re:You know what ? (1)

El (94934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375143)

This is why people like the BSD license.

Because they don't mind donating their work to Microsoft for free? Personally, I love it when Microsoft encorporates some of my work into their software... but I figure they can afford to pay me for it.

Re:You know what ? (2, Insightful)

bmajik (96670) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375237)

People that write software under the BSD license don't care who uses it for what. They enjoyed writing something; they may think it's pretty good; and by extension, they may think lots of people can benefit from it.

Consider this - if you beleive MS writes shitty software, wouldn'y you want them using as much BSD code as possible ? wouldn't that help standards compliance ? Wouldn't that help make MS's products less bad ? Wouldn't that inturn make life better for everyone ?

or is your argument basically "screw companies"?

The BSD license is about writing good software. The GPL license is about anti-corporatism.

Re:You know what ? (4, Insightful)

El (94934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375351)

Consider this - if you beleive MS writes shitty software, wouldn'y you want them using as much BSD code as possible ? Yes. But apparently in going from NT4.0 to Win2K, they rewrote most of the BSD-derived TCP code to make it less compatible with other BSD Sockets based apps. wouldn't that help standards compliance ? How does that stop them from "embracing and extending" the protocols once they have the source? Remember how Microsoft "adopting" Kerboros for SMB authentication, but perverted one of unused fields so it wouldn't work with anybody else's servers? Giving them a no-strings-attached implementation just makes their job of "embrace and extend" that much easier. Wouldn't that help make MS's products less bad ? Yes, it has in the past... until they rewrite the code. Wouldn't that inturn make life better for everyone ? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we all had one government, one religion, one software? Personally, the fact that I have to make so many choices every time I go to the grocery store really pisses me off... we'd all be off if there was only one food vendor!

Re:You know what ? (5, Informative)

albalbo (33890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375221)

"Pseudo-clever-licensing" keeps programmers out of court, dude. Apache's patent termination clause will make patent litigators think twice before bringing frivilous lawsuits. Like it or not, licences are incredibly important, and it's good to see Apache put as much effort into it as the FSF have.

For what it's worth, the official FSF response to the ASL2.0 licence is here, by Eben Moglen [apache.org] . Then Apache changed the licence under review. It's possible the FSF webmasters have not realised this, and that the comment applies only to the licence Eben reviewed (which was not the final ASL2.0). So, we could actually be arguing over nothing.

Re:You know what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375376)

> If there's a debate at all, it's not worth wasting your time thinking about it.
> This is why OpenBSD forks code when others play stupid license tricks.

Those two statements are incompatible. Obviously OpenBSD is "wasting time thinking about it" if they are forking.

Oh, and Theo recently said he was forking XFree because even though the licence did not conflict with BSD, it was "incompatible with the Spirit of Berkeley"!?!

At least the GPL is a legal document that can be intepreted in court, unlike Theo's imaginary "Spirit of Berkeley" which means he can do whatever the hell he feel likes.

No thanks. Men will choose the Rule Of Law (GPL) over the Rule of Men (Theo and BSD).

FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (2, Insightful)

October_30th (531777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8374984)

interpretation of the GPL license is not just the opinions of individuals in the FSF

A most excellent point.

Re:FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375018)

Whenever there's a disupute over what a license means, that's what the courts are for.

Re:FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (-1, Offtopic)

GnuVince (623231) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375034)

5: Insightful?! He took a quote and said "Good point". Please mod this down.

Oh no! (1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375256)

5: Insightful?! He took a quote and said "Good point"

Oh no! Welcome to the Internet!

Re:FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (1)

pe1rxq (141710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375152)

Although you could say the same about the apache group... they don't decide it either...

Right now we have the apache group saying: 'You shouldn't just accept anybodies interpetration, oh by the way here is ours, you should accept ours without doubt'

Jeroen

Re:FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375194)

RTFA.

The article said that you should read the two licences and decide for yourself. Someone has already provided a POV that A2.0 was incompatible and Apache has provided a contrasting view.

So RTFA and look at both licences so you can decide for yourself.

Re:FSF alone does not decide what GPL stands for (1)

October_30th (531777) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375197)

oh by the way here is ours, you should accept ours without doubt

No, they're not saying that.

They're just questioning FSF's sole position to decide what GPL means. About time, I say.

ATTN: People who say "meh" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8374989)

You are fucking stupid. You are trend followers. Whoever says "Meh" is a fucking retard.

Re:ATTN: People who say "meh" (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375032)

Meh.

So, what you're saying is that (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375288)

People who say 'meh' are not on the spoke, but are off in the weeds?

ASL compatible hmm... (4, Funny)

bad enema (745446) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375003)

So now Linux users can baske themselves in the glow of online dating too?

That's what I call progress!

1.0 and 1.1 Incompatible As Well... (4, Interesting)

bc90021 (43730) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375016)


The Apache License, Version 1.0.
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license with practical problems like those of the original BSD license, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL.

The Apache License, Version 1.1.
This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few requirements that render it incompatible with the GNU GPL.

We urge you not to use the Apache licenses for software you write. However, there is no reason to avoid running programs that have been released under this license, such as Apache.


It also says that versions 1.0 and 1.1 of the ASF License are incompatible... why are we only hearing about this with version 2.0?

Re:1.0 and 1.1 Incompatible As Well... (4, Informative)

Mark Imbriaco (133740) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375136)

We're hearing more about it because one of the primary goals for version 2.0 of the ASL was GPL compatability. The previous versions were known to be incompatabile from the beginning.

Re:1.0 and 1.1 Incompatible As Well... (1)

ImpTech (549794) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375183)

Probably because with the XFree86 debacle, licensing is now suddenly a hot topic. But a GPL-incompatible Apache isn't nearly as big a deal as a GPL-incompatible XFree86. Unless of course there's some very-important GPL'ed Apache module that I can't think of right now...

mod do3N (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375021)

the 5ame operation [goatse.cx]

Re:mod do3N (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375079)

Dumbass Troll doesn't even know goatse.cx has been shut down.

And yet, in a way, he successfully Trolled me. I bet he feels all warm and fuzzy.

Re:mod do3N (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375340)

goatse.cx has been shut down.

Offline? Must be that SCO is running it.

It doesn't matter for the most part (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375033)

In the hypothetical situation in which the APL is determined to be incompatible with the GPL, you could still link (L)GPL apps to Apache project code, because the Apache code would effectively be distributed under two licenses--the APL, and a slightly modified APL to make it GPL-compatible. They say as much by admitting that you can use Apache project code in GPL'd projects.

Re:It doesn't matter for the most part (2, Insightful)

SFEley (743605) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375167)

Incorrect. RTFA. The very last paragraph says, in effect, "Oh, by the way, Apache doesn't dual-license its software and never will, because we'd rather the words we say mean something."

Stinging... (5, Informative)

robslimo (587196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375035)

Wow, that (the actual linked article) is a very stinging reply to the comment on FSF's site. It hits home (lambasting people on Slashdot for bitching before getting their facts straight) and was way overdue.

According to the article, the comment that caused such a ruckus has not been attributed to any official at FSF and not been communicated to Apache by the FSF.

Quandry (1, Insightful)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375041)

I suppose it is dangerous to assume that the FSF has the final word on the GPL. But until the dust settles on this, I don't think anyone should link the new Apache code. I'm waiting to see if this turns ugly. I hope it doesn't, because it doesn't need to. The last thing the GPL needs is to have it's primary defender fighting it's most well-known user.

Re:Quandry (1)

Wudbaer (48473) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375324)


The last thing the GPL needs is to have it's primary defender fighting it's most well-known user.


Just that Apache does not use the GPL but their own licenses.

MACINTOSH 666 SIGN OF THE DEVIL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375042)

The proof is here [jesussave.us]

Apple Computers, the evil makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers are guilty of sin. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.

But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values"2. But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple3 by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness4.

This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Given the now obvious anti-Christian and cultish nature of Apple Computers, is it any wonder that they have decided to base their newest operating system on Darwinism? This just reaffirms the position that Darwinism is an inherently anti-Christian philosophy spread through propaganda and subliminal trickery, not a science as its brainwashed followers would have us believe.

Why not add a compatibility clause (4, Insightful)

G4from128k (686170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375057)

IANAL, but why can't the Apache people add a clause to their license that explicitly proclaims compatibility with some rev of GPL? If the compatiblity clause supercedes other clauses in Apache's license, then there really is no legal grounds for anyone later proclaiming that they are incompatible.

I never trust people that say "trust me, the contract can be interpreted in the way that you want it to." If someone wants a legal document to have a particular property, then the document should explicitly state that it has that property. But again, IANAL.

Re:Why not add a compatibility clause (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375227)

Well that is SCO's whole case, they are interpreting their contracts, whatever way they feel is most helpful to them at this point in time(changes on a regular basis) They want certian contract made non-exstiant while enhancing others with super human powers, like the ability to make huge leaps of illogic in a single bound.

vice-versa (3, Insightful)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375067)

Is the GPL APL-compatible? Is the GPL compatible with /any/ other license? No. However, the FSF makes a big deal whenever they think that an open source license isn't GPL-compatible.

Re:vice-versa (3, Insightful)

albalbo (33890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375165)

Um, by definition, any licence that is compatible with the GPL is an equal partner in the composition, so therefore the GPL must be compatible with that licence.

Not that the facts might get in the way of your argument, of course.

Re:vice-versa (1)

horster (516139) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375265)

I think what the original poster meant was that you can't include GPL code in say, a bsd project. But you can do vice versa, because the bsd/mit licenses tend to be much more 'free'/liberal than the GPL. It was a good point imho.

Re:vice-versa (2, Informative)

albalbo (33890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375306)

Of course, you can include GPL code in a BSD project. The licences are compatible. What you may not do is re-licence that GPL code as BSD. But - and this is what most people fail to understand - when you include BSD code into a GPL project, that BSD code isn't relicensed as GPL code.

The situation is exactly the same - if you have compatible licences, you can use that software together. I don't see the point there at all, I'm afraid.

Re:vice-versa (1)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375353)

The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL, so you are free to relicense BSD code under the GPL. It is still available under a less restrictive license elsewhere, but you are not required to keep it available under that license.

Re:vice-versa (1)

albalbo (33890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375390)

Where on earth did you hear this? Of course you cannot relicence the code, you're not the copyright holder. Only the copyright holder can relicence code. Yes, BSD has fewer requirements than the GPL, NO, that absolutely does not mean you can change it to another licence if you don't like the terms of it.

So... is there any copyright theft you want to own up to now?

Re:vice-versa (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375333)

You can combine GPL and BSDL (new version) code and distribute the results.

> But you can do vice versa, because the bsd/mit
> licenses tend to be much more 'free'/liberal than
> the GPL.

Basically, you can add restrictions to derivative versions of BSDL and APL code, but not to derivatives of GPL code. Whether the ability to add restrictions make something more or less free is a matter of definition.

Re:vice-versa (1)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375283)

By "GPL-compatible", I mean a license from which I can take covered code and add it to a GPL'd product. By "APL-compatible", I mean a license from which I can take covered code and add it to a GPL'd product.

Can I take code released under the APL and put it in a GPL'd product? That's under debate. However, I can take code from several other open source licenses and put them in a GPL'd product.

Can I take code released under the GPL and re-release it using /any/ other license, including the APL? No. The owners of the code can grant you the right to release it under another license, but then they have not solely used the GPL to distribute their code.

Not that the facts might get in the way of your argument, of course.

Re:vice-versa (1)

albalbo (33890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375364)

Can I take code released under the GPL and re-release it using /any/ other license, including the APL? No.

Yeah, that's right.. name a licence which does allow that. Oh, you can't? Never mind.

Untrue (1)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375225)

Is the GPL compatible with
any other license?
Here is a list of GPL compatible licenses. [fsf.org] .

Re:Untrue (1)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375304)

That's GPL-compatible licenses. I still cannot take GPL'd code and release it under another license. For instance, the GPL isn't BSD-compatible.

Re:Untrue (2, Informative)

albalbo (33890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375337)

You cannot take code under X licence and release it under Y.

(Fill in the licence).

Seriously, I don't think you understand how licences work.

Re:Untrue (2, Informative)

rmohr02 (208447) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375377)

It depends on the terms of "X license".

Authors real opinion (5, Insightful)

sirket (60694) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375071)

You just know that the author of the Apache rebuttal page wanted to end his analysis with: "So get bent."

Apache is a pretty good piece of software and if folks don't like the new license, well that's just tough. They have a right to license their code however they choose to. The people who write to them and tell them otherwise really do need to drop off the planet.

-sirket

Re:Authors real opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375219)

It's called the marketplace of ideas. If you have trouble dealing with it, go live in a fascist country.

In Soviet Russia, All License Are the Same (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375076)


In Nazi Germany, licenses are not allowed.

License "foo" is crap! (5, Insightful)

sirReal.83. (671912) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375091)

... Is an ignorant statement. Some authors decide to release their code under a certain license, and people bitch. If ASL doesn't play nice with the GPL, that is unfortunate... and we might have to look at something else. Then again, Apache 1.x is working great as far as I can tell. But these license zealots whining about how the "BSD/ASL/XFree/GPL sucks" are really just ignorant. If I write some code, and don't want it to be sucked up by a profit-making corporation without my consent, and without recieving any credit, that's my own fucking business! By the same token, if I want my code to be able to be used by whomever wants it, again, that's my own fucking business!

Re:License "foo" is crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375248)

If you don't want people commenting on what you do, don't make it public. You're like a writer who whines about bad reviews.

whining: people complaining about something you personally don't care about.

Advantages of ASL 2.0 (5, Informative)

jaaron (551839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375095)

One of the major advantages of the ASL 2.0 is that it is now easier for non-ASF projects to use the ASL. Previously you had to use an ASL-like license because unless you wanted to assign your copyright to the ASF you needed to adjust the wording of the license to include your name and your organization. The new license removes that information from the license itself and instead places it in a NOTICE file. This allows other open source projects to take advantage of the ASL and use it for their own organization.

While the ASL 2.0 is longer than the ASL 1.1, it's worth a read. A lot of effort was made to make this an easy license to adopt and use. If you're currently using a MIT or BSD style license, you may want to consider the new ASL 2.0.

Re:Advantages of ASL 2.0 (1)

Wudbaer (48473) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375363)


Previously you had to use an ASL-like license because unless you wanted to assign your copyright to the ASF you needed to adjust the wording of the license to include your name and your organization.


I think it shouldn't be too much trouble for you to 1) read the license you are attaching to your software and 2) be able to adapt it to your needs. It's like complaining that the pre-printed rental contract you bought at the stationary shop already didn't have your name and address printed on it.

Bye bye goatse.cx (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375123)

[To the tune of "American Pie" by Don McLean]


A long long time ago
I can still remember how that image used to burn my eyes
And I knew if I had my chance
I could hide a link in a rant
and maybe they'd be pissed off for a while.
But January made me shiver
with every link-troll I deliver
Bad links on the doorstep, I couldn't take one more step.
I can't remember if I cried
when I heard about his orphaned site
But something touched me deep inside
the day the goatse died.


So bye bye to the goatse site
Put his fingers up his asshole and his asshole was wide.
Yeah these old trolls were on Slashdot and K5
Singing this will be the day the Net dies
This will be the day the Net dies.

GNU over Power Lines... (2, Funny)

Frennzy (730093) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375126)

Great. Now running GNU over Power Lines interferes with Apache. Just wait until the HAMS who run amateur radio websites hear about this.

Oh...wait...

Shoe on the other foot. (3, Insightful)

clintp (5169) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375148)

Programmers get irritated with management, sales, supervisors, and especially users when they can't write a specification for us to write programs. We bitch because they're vague and contradictory. They change their minds, can't decide what they want, and try to please all the wrong people with all of the wrong features.

As someone who empathises with users trying to get a workable program, these kinds of license wars crack me up. The next time you complain about the spec being inadaquate or changing: remember that programmers too are mostly incapable of expressing what they want in English and pleasing all of their masters.

Here's a hint (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375171)

Nobody cares about your stupid fucking licenses! Just try making decent software for a change, like Microsoft.

An Open Source Constitution? (1)

Sean80 (567340) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375196)

I wonder if there'd be any value in an "Open Source Constitution", which could serve as the bedrock against which issues such as this could be judged by the community.

Or, does the GPL already serve essentially the same purpose?

Re:An Open Source Constitution? (3, Insightful)

albalbo (33890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375267)

The Free Software Foundation has the "four freedoms" by which you can judge the freedom of something, the OSI have their (derived) "open source definition".

The GPL is merely the embodiment of these values, but not the only one by any means.

Looting the OSS infrastructure? (1, Interesting)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375218)

Anyone have any ideas as to why it is that suddenly; projects that are integral to the OSS movement (X, apache) are being converted to signifigantly more conservative licenses?

Are we re-playing the unix fragmentation of the late 80's?

Re:Looting the OSS infrastructure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375279)

ASL2 isn't more conservative than ASL1.

Well, except the patent termination clause, but that is probably a Good Thing.

Non-Western versions of licenses? (2, Interesting)

swb (14022) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375230)

This is off-topic, but...

Most of the software licenses (BSD, GPL, etc) debated here have their basic origins in copyright and ideas about intellectual property that are distinctly American/European in origin.

Is there any such thing or is anyone aware of software licensing schemes that are more organically based on non-Western ideas of intellectual property or copyright concepts?

The western bias of these licenses makes sense in that they're primarily issued and used in western countries, and hence, need to be oriented towards western IP and copyright models.

But as software development and usage grows in places like China and India, will we see PPL (People's Public License) or IPL (Indian Public License) with terms or concepts different than GPL/BSD, etc?

Re:Non-Western versions of licenses? (1)

gosand (234100) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375350)

But as software development and usage grows in places like China and India, will we see PPL (People's Public License) or IPL (Indian Public License) with terms or concepts different than GPL/BSD, etc?

By using this software you are agreeing that any violation of the licensing terms will result in your entire family being imprisoned.

Sory, bad joke, couldn't resist.

You know what? Who the Fuck Cares? (4, Insightful)

trims (10010) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375233)

Now, I usually don't get this annoyed, but we've gone through a bunch of these recently, and I'm sick of it.

The GPL is not Holy Scripture

The GPL is nice. It works for a large amount of stuff. However, it very much does NOT work for many other things, even in the Open Source world. I don't (and you shouldn't) want everything to be GPL'd. The GPL has a LOT of problems, freedom to copy aside. It is definitely not suitable for every purpose, given our current legal framework.

We should measure a license by how obnoxious and restrictive it is, not some idiot litmus test of GPL-compatibility. I prefer that we gravitate to a small number of general licenses for simplicity's sake, but there is no real good reason that they all HAVE to be GPL-compatible, any more than they all HAVE to be BSD-compatible.

The various ASL versions are all very benign and nice BSD-ish licenses, that may or may not be GPL compatible. They have very liberal code reuse and copying provisions, and very few restrictions. If they are GPL-incompatible, well, then, that's life. I'm not going to get angry over this, any more than I get upset because I can't use GPL libraries with my proprietary code.

Please quite focusing on the idiotic minutia, and pay attention to the hard issues of license lock-in and IP coralling prevelant in software licensing today.

-Erik

It does matter (1)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375298)

GPL, BSD, ASL, and other open source licenses protect software IP as well so you need to deal with them if you want to solve the problems with license lock-ins and IP coralling prevelant in software licensing today.

I disagree (1)

aled (228417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375245)

Of course, this is still up to debate

I think is not debatable. Of course I could be wrong. What others think about this is not just the opinions of individuals, so I should not care what you think. But your opinion is important. Really.

In other news (4, Funny)

El (94934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375250)

SCO apparently beleives the GPL is SCO License compatible... which just goes to show what somebody thinks doesn't mean jack until you test it in court.

For those who think the BSD license is the best (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8375280)

Here's what Linux Torvalds said when asked if he wished he'd chosen a different license the GPL:

Absolutely not. I personally think that the BSD license is a dead end for serious projects, since it inevitably results in forking with no way to re-join if it becomes commercially viable.

Forking a project is in my opinion hugely important, since forks are how all real development gets done, and the ability to fork keeps everybody honest (i.e. if you don't do a good job and keep your users happy, they can always fork the project and go on their own). But equally important is the ability to join back forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can really think of the whole license as nothing more than a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project from either side.


I don't think so... (5, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375305)

Certainly they're right that the text of the licence, not the opinion of the FSF, is what matters. However, they seem to not understand their own licence:

The Apache License says that if you claim the Apache software contains something that is not licensed free for everyone (i.e., specifically, you accuse someone of infringing your patent which implies that your patent is not free for everyone), then you can't use the Apache License as a defense against your own infringements.

Actually, the Apache License says more than that. It says "any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate" if you file certain lawsuits. Without patent licenses, in theory you can't even run the software. (Which is why software patents are evil, stupid, and must be destroyed.)

The Apache License can take away your right to use the software by revoking patent licenses (admittedly, only if you behave like a scumbag, but that's beside the point).This is what is not permitted under the GPL. The GPL states "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein"; a license that says "you can't use this software if you behave like a scumbag and file patent lawsuits" is not compatible with this requirement.

Again, it's not necessarily a bad idea (as the FSF page notes). But it is not GPL-compatible.

ASL (1)

j-turkey (187775) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375355)

Wow...Age/Sex/Location -- now finally GPL friendly. Now I can finally meet people in AOL chatrooms without all of the propritary headache! ;)

Is! Isn't! Is! Isn't! Is! Isn't! (0, Troll)

ENOENT (25325) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375370)

Oh yeah! Well, your mother's not GPL compatible!

This is actually an important discussion (2, Interesting)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#8375385)

The GPL is not just the agenda of an extremist code liberty organisation. It's also the basic constitution of a large part of the Internet.

The fact that Apache has been moving towards a GPL-compatible license and away from the more open earlier licenses shows that there is a desire to benefit from some of the protection that the GPL offers.

(As a free software author, I've made the same move from liberal BSD-style licenses to the GPL in the last years, swayed in part by Stallman's argument that anything less than the GPL helps commercial competitors more than open source developers.)

The compatibility of these two licenses is essential if we're to see Apache smoothly integrated into wider GPL'd frameworks.

The FSF appears quite flexible in considering changes to the GPL for future versions, and I suspect the Apache Group are important enough to push through what they need.

It's an important discussion and one I'll be following.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?