[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

Jim Jagielski jim at jaguNET.com
Sat Jan 16 14:20:25 UTC 2016

> On Jan 15, 2016, at 3:34 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> 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".
> FSF opinions on license compatibility, to steal McCoy's phrase for this purpose, seem "like an exercise in whack-a-mole." Roy Fielding's stated opinions on that dispute between FSF and Apache were as usual dead-right. FSF's objections to Apache 2.0 came out of left field.  


> But Apache's own license compatibility matrix is equally nonsense. This desire of people in open source to "be nice to community opinions" has resulted in unnecessary confusion about license compatibility. 

Yeah, that is true as well, although 'nonsense' may be kind of
strong :)

> Here's another example: Apache2.0 allows AFL3.0 contributions. GPLv3 allows Apache2.0 contributions presumably including those AFL3.0 parts. But GPLv3 doesn't allow AFL3.0 contributions because that license "contains contract provisions."  :-)  You figure it out.
> /Larry

More information about the License-review mailing list