6 ms·

The Apache license isn't compatible with GPLv2. Isn't it possible to take a standard patent clause and add it to their UIUC/MIT licenses? Google has done somet

The Apache license isn't compatible with GPLv2. Isn't it possible to take a standard patent clause and add it to their UIUC/MIT licenses? Google has done something similar with Go, using BSD + their own patent grant.[1] [1] https://golang.org/PATENTS https://golang.org/PATENTS

azakai 11y ago
GPLv2 incompatibility does seem like a possible issue. Moving to Apache would make it impossible to ever embed LLVM in the Linux kernel, for example. That might seem unnecessary now, but perhaps someday there will be a use for a JIT in the kernel, that we can't foresee. The same problem might exist with other patent clauses, though - is the Go one compatible with GPLv2?
- pyvpx 11y ago
  see eBPF
- DannyBee 11y ago
  "Moving to Apache would make it impossible to ever embed LLVM in the Linux kernel, for example" Because the kernel is GPLv2 only, you also can't embed the GCC JIT, as it's GPLv3. So essentially, you are screwed along multiple axes "but perhaps someday there will be a use for a JIT in the kernel, that we can't foresee." Maybe, but you can't solve every use case on one side. (IE it may be that the kernel may have to have some licensing movement as well)
  - azakai 11y ago
    Yes, multiple axes, but this would be a regression for LLVM. In any case, there are other compilers which would remain license compatible with the GPL2, so should the kernel ever need one it could still have one, I guess it just wouldn't be LLVM or GCC.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      "but this would be a regression for LLVM" Surely, but as you can imagine, the LLVM community needs to figure out whether this is a use case they care about (it was raised in that discussion, and i think the consensus so far has been "not really")
      - azakai 11y ago
        Yes, of course.
Joky 11y ago
It seems from what I understand from the discussion that fundamentally you can't have a patent clause in a license and having it being compatible with GPLv2. (IANAL) Edit: see the last paragraph in this email: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091636.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091636...
DannyBee 11y ago
A. GPLv2 also isn't compatible with GPLv3, or a host of other licenses as well (There is tons of software that is not GPLv2 or later). So far, nobody has pointed out a piece of software this would cause actual issues with[1] B. I wrote that patent clause ;) The patent clause is one-way, and works in part because Go collects CLA's that grant google and contributors other patent rights. So using such a license basically has the CLA option as a pre-requisite. [1] (interestingly, at least to me, this incompatibility this raises weird issues around doing things like using older gplv2 gcc's with newer gcc runtime libraries. The gcc runtimes require gpl compatible software as part of the exception, and define gpl compatible in a way that seems to exclude gplv2 ;P)
- cm3 11y ago
  I've always wondered why the liability clause in Apache License 2.0 explicitly takes on liability for certain situations compared to no liability with MIT, ISC, BSD licenses, and I fear it because I can't control what users do with code I've published (think rm, fdisk, or anything else that can be easily misused). Can you explain what it means, and why it's not use-at-own-risk? For what it's worth, I like the patent clause for obvious reasons like dealing with current reality. It's funny that the liability clause seems pretty similar to that found in GPLv2.
  - dfc 11y ago
    What liability does the Apache License accept other than that which is required by law? "8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages."
    - 11y ago
JoshTriplett 11y ago
> The Apache license isn't compatible with GPLv2. That seems potentially fixable, if they're changing the license anyway. Apache with an exception for linking to GPLv2 could work. > Isn't it possible to take a standard patent clause and add it to their UIUC/MIT licenses? Writing a new license is almost always a bad idea, and if they did write such a license, it should go to OSI and FSF for review first.

azakai 11y ago

GPLv2 incompatibility does seem like a possible issue. Moving to Apache would make it impossible to ever embed LLVM in the Linux kernel, for example. That might seem unnecessary now, but perhaps someday there will be a use for a JIT in the kernel, that we can't foresee. The same problem might exist with other patent clauses, though - is the Go one compatible with GPLv2?

pyvpx 11y ago
see eBPF
DannyBee 11y ago
"Moving to Apache would make it impossible to ever embed LLVM in the Linux kernel, for example" Because the kernel is GPLv2 only, you also can't embed the GCC JIT, as it's GPLv3. So essentially, you are screwed along multiple axes "but perhaps someday there will be a use for a JIT in the kernel, that we can't foresee." Maybe, but you can't solve every use case on one side. (IE it may be that the kernel may have to have some licensing movement as well)
- azakai 11y ago
  Yes, multiple axes, but this would be a regression for LLVM. In any case, there are other compilers which would remain license compatible with the GPL2, so should the kernel ever need one it could still have one, I guess it just wouldn't be LLVM or GCC.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "but this would be a regression for LLVM" Surely, but as you can imagine, the LLVM community needs to figure out whether this is a use case they care about (it was raised in that discussion, and i think the consensus so far has been "not really")
    - azakai 11y ago
      Yes, of course.

Joky 11y ago

It seems from what I understand from the discussion that fundamentally you can't have a patent clause in a license and having it being compatible with GPLv2. (IANAL) Edit: see the last paragraph in this email: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091636.html http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091636...

DannyBee 11y ago

A. GPLv2 also isn't compatible with GPLv3, or a host of other licenses as well (There is tons of software that is not GPLv2 or later). So far, nobody has pointed out a piece of software this would cause actual issues with[1] B. I wrote that patent clause ;) The patent clause is one-way, and works in part because Go collects CLA's that grant google and contributors other patent rights. So using such a license basically has the CLA option as a pre-requisite. [1] (interestingly, at least to me, this incompatibility this raises weird issues around doing things like using older gplv2 gcc's with newer gcc runtime libraries. The gcc runtimes require gpl compatible software as part of the exception, and define gpl compatible in a way that seems to exclude gplv2 ;P)

cm3 11y ago
I've always wondered why the liability clause in Apache License 2.0 explicitly takes on liability for certain situations compared to no liability with MIT, ISC, BSD licenses, and I fear it because I can't control what users do with code I've published (think rm, fdisk, or anything else that can be easily misused). Can you explain what it means, and why it's not use-at-own-risk? For what it's worth, I like the patent clause for obvious reasons like dealing with current reality. It's funny that the liability clause seems pretty similar to that found in GPLv2.
- dfc 11y ago
  What liability does the Apache License accept other than that which is required by law? "8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages."
  - 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> The Apache license isn't compatible with GPLv2. That seems potentially fixable, if they're changing the license anyway. Apache with an exception for linking to GPLv2 could work. > Isn't it possible to take a standard patent clause and add it to their UIUC/MIT licenses? Writing a new license is almost always a bad idea, and if they did write such a license, it should go to OSI and FSF for review first.