[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

[Lawrence Rosen]

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. 

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



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim at jaguNET.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 11:20 AM
To: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

I encourage you to read the full history, esp:

	http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/archive-license/200401.mbox/%3c20040109143803.G31301@fez.hyperreal.org%3e
	http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/archive-license/200401.mbox/%3c23385101-4E15-11D8-915D-000393753936@apache.org%3e
	http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/archive-license/200401.mbox/%3c4686EED7-4E1D-11D8-915D-000393753936@apache.org%3e

Thx.

> 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

_______________________________________________
License-review mailing list
License-review at opensource.org
https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review