On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Chris Waters wrote: > With the Apache Foundation publicly disagreeing with the FSF over > whether the new Apache Source License 2.0 is compatible with the > GPL, I think it might be wise for us to look into the matter and > form our own opinions, so that (e.g.) if someone submits code that > mixes the two licenses, we'll know how to respond. > > The AF rebuttal to the FSF is found here: > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility > > My initial impression is that their analysis is flawed.
It's most definetly flawed. I pointed the issues out to Fielding and
suggested that the AF refrain from declaring the license GPL
compatibile without at least discussing it with Eben Moglen a month
ago, especially since the AF doesn't have any where near as much
experience with the license as Eben and the FSF does. I just hope no
one really believes their claims of compatibility.
In a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I outline at least my reasoning
of why it isn't GPL compatible, and furthermore, why it means nothing
for the AF to declare the ASL v2 GPL compatible:
From my reading, the language of ASL§3 when combined with GPL§7
could disallow a class of distribution normally allowed for a
GPLed work alone.
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
obligations under this License and any other pertinent
obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
Program at all. [...] if a patent license would not permit
royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who
receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the
only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be
to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.[GPL §7]
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. [ASL §3]
The conflict primarily revolves around the ability of the
distributor to distribute an ASL+GPLed work after the distributor
has lost a patent license due to reciprocity. Since the GPL itself
does not contain such a restriction, you cannot turn around and
license the resultant work under the GPL alone as required by GPL
§2c, etc.
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.
Unfortunately, Apache's opinion isn't enough, unless the ASL is
only going to be applied to works (and combined works) wholly
owned by ASF. The opinion of the copyright holder of the GPLed
work being combined with an ASLed work is also at issue here. As
the FSF is the copyright holder on quite a large number of GPLed
works, as well as the principle enforcer of the GPL, their opinion
was sought as a reference point.
That at least, is my reading of the current situation. Feel free, of
course, to poke holes in my reasoning and point out additional issues.
Don Armstrong
1:http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=141
--
Unix, MS-DOS, and Windows NT (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly).
-- Matt Welsh
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
