www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: GPL3 and AL2 compatability
Date Sun, 01 Apr 2007 11:24:33 GMT
Eh, it's not over yet.  There's another "Really Final Draft" that  
follows this "Final Draft", so there's oppo to fix this.

geir

On Mar 30, 2007, at 7:23 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:

> So, the GPL3 will not be compatible with the AL2 after all. This is  
> a real shame. The problem is described in [1] as:
>
> --- END copied text --
>
> 4.4 Statement on Apache License Compatibility
> We regret that we will not achieve compatibility of the Apache  
> License,
> Version 2.0, with GPLv3, despite what we had previously promised.
> Our consideration of Apache/GPL license compatibility has focused on
> the patent termination clause in the Apache license. As we  
> explained above
> in § 4.1, this clause is compatible with Draft 3 because it is not  
> a “further restriction.”
> However, we overlooked another provision in the current Apache
> license that, on its face, is incompatible with the GPL. Under  
> section 9
> of the Apache license, downstream redistributors must agree to  
> indemnify
> upstream licensors under certain conditions.27
> Although we have studied section 9 of the Apache license at some  
> length,
> we fail to understand its precise purpose or effect. On one  
> interpretation,
> the indemnification clause should never have any consequence,  
> since, one
> might argue, the liability incurred by an upstream licensor “by  
> reason of” a
> downstream redistributor’s acceptance of warranty or liability  
> ought always
> to be zero. However, we think this cannot have been the intent of the
> drafters of the Apache license. Terms in free software licenses  
> must be
> assumed to have real meaning. Because the GPL gives redistributors an
> unconditional right to offer warranty protection,28 and because the  
> terms of
> the Apache license appear to survive incorporation of Apache- 
> covered code
> into a GPL-covered work, section 9 of the Apache license would give  
> rise to
> an impermissible further restriction on GPL rights.
> We apologize to the Apache community for having previously overlooked
> the significance of this issue. We look forward to further  
> discussions with
> the Apache Foundation in the hope of achieving compatibility in the  
> future.
>
> --- END copied text --
>
> So, what is our position on this?
>
> Can we work with the FSF with respect to section 9 of the AL2?
>
> (Yes I know people here have been working hard in the consultation  
> process to try and ensure compatibility. I'm trying to avoid the  
> politics and look at how we might make the licences compatible)
>
> Ross
>
> [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message