On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Chris Cappuccio <ch...@nmedia.net> wrote:
> Ingo Schwarze [schwa...@usta.de] wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > > > kbenjamin Coplon wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:23:43PM -0400: > > > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move > > > to the Apache license? > > > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck with > > version released before the change, just like we are stuck with > > pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > > > Apache > > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, > > but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license > > is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included > > into OpenBSD. > > > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us. > > > > One major problem with the Apache 2.0 license is the fact that it > is not merely a software license, but extends out into contract law. > This has been a concern with many licenses, not just Apache. > > If you use Apache 2.0 license code, you lose rights that you otherwise > retain under the MIT or BSD license. > > Just review sections 3 and 4. The patent clause in section 3 is an issue. > > https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt > > Chris > > Ironically, LLVM wants protection against patents.
