4 ms·

LLVM's proposed switch included a provision to make it explicitly compatible with GPLv2. That seems like a nice precedent to follow for other projects that are

LLVM's proposed switch included a provision to make it explicitly compatible with GPLv2. That seems like a nice precedent to follow for other projects that are considering Apache 2 as their license.

kibwen 10y ago
I'd say that works for LLVM only because Apple can afford lawyers who can argue that provision if it ever came to that (not that I think it ever would). AFAICT, ASLv2 is superior to BSD/MIT in all practical respects except for the GPLv2 compatibility, and if it were so trivially easy to make a version of ASLv2 that didn't have that downside, then I feel like some company would have already done that and instantly created The One Permissive License To Rule Them All (and in the eyes of the law, bind them). Until such an exceptional provision becomes established precedent, I'd suggest that small projects stick to vetted licenses rather than pitching in with anything novel.
- int_19h 10y ago
  > AFAICT, ASLv2 is superior to BSD/MIT in all practical respects except for the GPLv2 compatibility Not for the companies. Many prefer MIT over ASL precisely because they don't want any sort of patent grants.
  - riffraff 10y ago
    Why do they prefer to avoid patent grants? It seems unreasonable to me.
    - yarrel 10y ago
      It is, but it's what they want.
  - kibwen 10y ago
    AFAICT this is overstating the patent-related aspects of ASL. It doesn't require a patent grant or nullify any parents you hold, or even prevent you from suing others over misuse of those patents. All it does is provide mutually assured destruction: if you sue someone over the use of your patent within this software, then you forfeit any legal protection from others who have patents within this software. This is extremely company-friendly, because companies are the ones who tend to go around suing over patents, and also the ones who feel compelled to stock up on patents to use defensively.

LLVM's proposed switch included a provision to make it explicitly compatible with GPLv2. That seems like a nice precedent to follow for other projects that are considering Apache 2 as their license.

kibwen 10y ago

I'd say that works for LLVM only because Apple can afford lawyers who can argue that provision if it ever came to that (not that I think it ever would). AFAICT, ASLv2 is superior to BSD/MIT in all practical respects except for the GPLv2 compatibility, and if it were so trivially easy to make a version of ASLv2 that didn't have that downside, then I feel like some company would have already done that and instantly created The One Permissive License To Rule Them All (and in the eyes of the law, bind them). Until such an exceptional provision becomes established precedent, I'd suggest that small projects stick to vetted licenses rather than pitching in with anything novel.

int_19h 10y ago
> AFAICT, ASLv2 is superior to BSD/MIT in all practical respects except for the GPLv2 compatibility Not for the companies. Many prefer MIT over ASL precisely because they don't want any sort of patent grants.
- riffraff 10y ago
  Why do they prefer to avoid patent grants? It seems unreasonable to me.
  - yarrel 10y ago
    It is, but it's what they want.
- kibwen 10y ago
  AFAICT this is overstating the patent-related aspects of ASL. It doesn't require a patent grant or nullify any parents you hold, or even prevent you from suing others over misuse of those patents. All it does is provide mutually assured destruction: if you sue someone over the use of your patent within this software, then you forfeit any legal protection from others who have patents within this software. This is extremely company-friendly, because companies are the ones who tend to go around suing over patents, and also the ones who feel compelled to stock up on patents to use defensively.