[License-review] Approval: BSD + Patent License

[Jim Jagielski]

> 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.  

++1.

> 
> 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