[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

Jim Jagielski jim at jaguNET.com
Fri Jan 15 19:19:38 UTC 2016

I encourage you to read the full history, esp:



> On Jan 15, 2016, at 9:57 AM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-01-15 at 09:20 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> For the record, the ALv2 was also designed to be compatible w/ the
>> GPLv2 and during the drafting process, comments and suggestions
>> from various parties associated with the GPL were incorporated.
>> We fully expected that the FSF (and others), based on this and
>> from their feedback, would formally state that ALv2 was compatible;
>> you can imagine our surprise (and disappointment) when, not long
>> after we released it, we were told "nope".
> That is not how I read the feedback the FSF gave on the ASLv2 draft:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/archive-license/200311.mbox/%
> 3C16309.18688.540989.283163 at new.law.columbia.edu%3E
> It states that the patent retaliation clause is incompatible in general
> with GPLv2. But that it is a good idea anyway. And that if the ASLv2 was
> changed in certain ways then it could be used as template for the next
> version of the GPL to make ASLv2 and GPLv3 compatible. Which is what
> happily happened in the end.
> Eben Moglen's comments on the ASLv2 draft above might be interesting in
> general for this discussion since it not only touches on patent clauses
> that might be (in)compatible with the GPL, but also what is a
> contribution/contributor.
> Cheers,
> Mark
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

More information about the License-review mailing list