Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 81227 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2004 21:32:38 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2004 21:32:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 65504 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2004 21:32:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-xml-general-archive@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 65440 invoked by uid 500); 18 Feb 2004 21:32:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: general@xml.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@xml.apache.org Received: (qmail 65421 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2004 21:32:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail4.speakeasy.net) (216.254.0.204) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Feb 2004 21:32:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 26309 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2004 21:32:25 -0000 Received: from dsl254-085-072.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO [192.168.254.4]) ([216.254.85.72]) (envelope-sender ) by mail4.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 18 Feb 2004 21:32:25 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: elharo@mail.ibiblio.org (Unverified) Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <4C2F1577F2EF2840A9AE9EC61860C881976499@usseex01.amer.bea.com> <20040207090702.A7FC.DEV.JEREMIAS@greenmail.ch> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 13:51:45 -0500 To: general@xml.apache.org From: Elliotte Rusty Harold Subject: Re: FSF says the Version 2.0 license is incompatible with GPL Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N At 5:53 PM +0100 2/18/04, Paul Libbrecht wrote: >Although it sorts of invalidates the purpose of the 2.0 >reformulation (or at least one of them), I think it is rather yet >another bad shot for FSF, at leat so I would consider it. They keep >asking everyone doing a license to lean down the knees in front the >major gnu... >MPL did only solve this by adding you could take MPL or LGPL... > This would certainly be an option for Apache, if you're so motivated. An alternative would be to lobby the FSF to release a GPL 3.0 which is compatible with Apache 2.0. I have no inside information on this, but certainly the FSF has considered patent issues in the past. They may well be looking at adding a patent revocation clause of their own. It does not appear that there's any philosophical divide between the two organizations on these matters. It's simply a matter of lining up the language in the two licenses so everyone can be happy. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@metalab.unc.edu Effective XML (Addison-Wesley, 2003) http://www.cafeconleche.org/books/effectivexml http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0321150406/ref%3Dnosim/cafeaulaitA --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org