Apache vs. BSD licenses

Brian Behlendorf brian at collab.net
Wed Mar 21 05:19:12 UTC 2001

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, David Johnson wrote:
> On Tuesday March 20 2001 06:12 pm, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
> > endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, but clause 5 ("Apache" may
> > not appear in the product name) will not.
> Why is it always the non-GPL license that must conform? Why is the GPL never
> criticized for being incompatible?

Er, actually, it sounds like he's considering substantive changes in
GPLv3, or at least "clarifications" for the pragmatic purpose of
explaining or reconciling compatibility issues, so long as it doesn't
change his core beliefs about what constitutes "free".

Since the Apache community's views on IP are not incompatible with the
FSF's (Apache developers are already comfortable with the idea that
commercial entities can use the code in proprietary products without
contributing anything back; the idea of someone using Apache code in a
GPL-licensed derivative work is no worse) I've been attempting to
reconcile our licenses to allow GPL derived works.  The
issue is now all that separates us.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list