3 ms·
GPLv3 is for a lot of companies too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, etc. Though many were never fond of the copy-left nature of GPLv2(and 1),
by bluejekyll 9y ago
GPLv3 is for a lot of companies too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, etc. Though many were never fond of the copy-left nature of GPLv2(and 1), they allowed it. GPLv3 upped the bar, to a degree that many lawyers won't sign off on its use.
Apache 2.0 is the standard for almost every company I've dealt with, with MIT and BSD 3 clause being accepted as well. But Apache 2 seems to make most lawyers happy.
- maheart 9y agoYou say the GPLv3 is too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, but the Apache 2.0 is okay? The Apache 2.0 license requires a patent grant. How do they differ in the patent grant? I'd speculate that for many companies the GPLv3 is too strong in its copy-left stance, by disallowing Tivoization.
- belorn 9y agoGPLv3 patent text was created by literally copying the part from the Apache 2.0 text, and then adding a paragraph to handle patent agreements such as the one between Novel and Microsoft. The distinction between the two text is case of paten agreements.