apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sam TH <...@uchicago.edu>
Subject Re: Build bustage on FreeBSD and Linux
Date Fri, 02 Feb 2001 21:10:12 GMT
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:51:04PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> [ moved to dev@apr.apache.org ]
> 
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 02:35:35PM -0600, Sam TH wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 12:31:33PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
> > > > that in AbiWord, keeping things working across platforms would be
> > > > nearly impossible without the help of Tinderbox.  APR makes that
> > > > easier here (insert license whine) but it's still a good idea.  
> > > 
> > > What's wrong with the license?
> > 
> > if(license1 == apache && license2 == gpl)
> > 	gratuitousIncompatibility = true;
> 
>   RMS_posits_incompatibility_without_explanation = true

The incompatibility is exactly the same sort as the old BSD
advertising clause.  The additional restrictions (that you have to
credit the ASF, or whomever, and that you can't use the Apache name,
or whatever name the package has) are "additional restrictions" that
violates clause 6 of the GPL [1]

> 
> > Supposedly RMS and Brian Behlendorf are working to resolve this.
> 
> Brian is asking his reasoning, RMS isn't responding.
> 
> In the past, I believe he has stated that clause (4) is an "additional
> restriction" which violates some clause in the GPL. But he continues to be
> mum on the situation.
> 

See: 
http://mail.conecta.it/pipermail/freesw/2000-December/000729.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

<quote src="RMS">
However, the current Apache license has a substantive incompatibility
which won't go away.  It says, in various ways, that modified versions
can't be called "Apache".  That is a requirement which is not in the
GPL; there are no two ways about it--and it is not a trivial one.
Thus, while GPL version 2.1 would make some additional licenses
compatible, the present Apache license is not one of them.
</quote>

The most annoying thing about this is this message to debian-legal,
from Brian Behlendorf: 
<quote src="http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=3907426&list=208">
That`s why both clauses contain the word "please", and don`t say the
word "must".  Trademark protection is beyond the scope of a copyright
license, and protection of the Apache name is very important to us -
we`d be pretty pissed by someone releasing a product called
"ApachePro", "Apache++", etc, even if it was open source.  Yet we do
allow it to be used from time to time, basically by those who are
solid contributors to the code base.
</quote>

Unfortunately, that's not actually what the license says.  

> The ASF is going to rewrite clause 4 and 5 so that we don't have to
> search/replace every copy of the license that we attach to the software.
> That should coincidentally remove his perceived incompatibility.
> 

Wonderful.  That will make me very happy.  What can I do to make this
happen sooner? (kidding about the last one)

> Note that you are in charge of the GPL'd software, it is always your right
> to make an allowance *if* this perceived incompatibility bothers you.
> ("nothing in this license [the GPL] should be construed as interfering with
> the inclusion of the APR project.")

Well, it would be that easy, if there weren't over 100 copyright
holders.  

[1] "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein."
           
	sam th		     
	sam@uchicago.edu
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
	GnuPG Key:  
	http://www.abisource.com/~sam/key

Mime
View raw message