4 ms·

> Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue? Apache 2.0 License.

by gnomewascool 5y ago

xahrepap 5y ago
Good to know. Thanks!
ksec 5y ago
And BSD + Patents
Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
I think this is a common misconception. The Apache 2.0 license isn't all that similar to simpler licenses BSD/MIT/X11. Apache 2.0 has some clauses which (most people tend to ignore and which) make it somewhat incompatible with modern open-source fork and pull request workflows. In particular 4.b) > You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; For the most part, people just throw their name in the file, in an attempt to "meet" this requirement without massacring the file header/notice. However, if the Apache 2 license is taken at face value, when you fork and modify a file, you have to mark it as such. Then when you submit back, the project (in adherence with the Apache 2.0 license) has to retain this notice. Technically the project may even then need to add their own notice to indicate they modified the file since you did. Clearly, that's not tenable, so most (small) projects just offer leeway. Larger projects instead have contributor agreements (AOSP and alike).
- est31 5y ago
  Yeah it's a bit troubling that such weird clauses exist in the Apache license, and that the Apache license has become this popular lately. The main motivator is that everyone else is doing it I think, and the patent license. Large Apache licensed projects without contributor agreements exist (LLVM for example).
- frant-hartm 5y ago
  I would argue that git blame is prominent enough. And as long as you don't distribute sources in any other way than a git repo you are fine.
  - Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
    Assuming this is true (hopefully it never comes down to it, but I'll leave that for the courts), then the simple act of hosting on Github, with its download source functionality, would make you in violation.
  - atq2119 5y ago
    You can argue all you want, ultimately it's for courts to decide, and in the meantime the Apache 2 license creates a ton of legal uncertainty for no good reason. For example, GPL has language requiring you to make clear that you changed the software, but leaves open how you do it, and doesn't require you to mark individual files.
- smaddox 5y ago
  I guess I assumed you only need to be clear about the modifications if you are not also releasing them as Apache 2.0. is that not the case? If not, is there any other similar standard license with a patent clause that I could use?
xxpor 5y ago
The "default" license for Java libraries being Apache 2.0 shouldn't be overlooked as a reason for the success of Java in the corporate world IMO. It's a perfect license to make corp lawyers comfortable.

> Is there a license that falls under Linus's SECOND bucket, that solves the patent issue? Apache 2.0 License.

xahrepap 5y ago

Good to know. Thanks!

ksec 5y ago

And BSD + Patents

Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago

I think this is a common misconception. The Apache 2.0 license isn't all that similar to simpler licenses BSD/MIT/X11. Apache 2.0 has some clauses which (most people tend to ignore and which) make it somewhat incompatible with modern open-source fork and pull request workflows. In particular 4.b) > You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; For the most part, people just throw their name in the file, in an attempt to "meet" this requirement without massacring the file header/notice. However, if the Apache 2 license is taken at face value, when you fork and modify a file, you have to mark it as such. Then when you submit back, the project (in adherence with the Apache 2.0 license) has to retain this notice. Technically the project may even then need to add their own notice to indicate they modified the file since you did. Clearly, that's not tenable, so most (small) projects just offer leeway. Larger projects instead have contributor agreements (AOSP and alike).

est31 5y ago
Yeah it's a bit troubling that such weird clauses exist in the Apache license, and that the Apache license has become this popular lately. The main motivator is that everyone else is doing it I think, and the patent license. Large Apache licensed projects without contributor agreements exist (LLVM for example).
frant-hartm 5y ago
I would argue that git blame is prominent enough. And as long as you don't distribute sources in any other way than a git repo you are fine.
- Benjamin_Dobell 5y ago
  Assuming this is true (hopefully it never comes down to it, but I'll leave that for the courts), then the simple act of hosting on Github, with its download source functionality, would make you in violation.
- atq2119 5y ago
  You can argue all you want, ultimately it's for courts to decide, and in the meantime the Apache 2 license creates a ton of legal uncertainty for no good reason. For example, GPL has language requiring you to make clear that you changed the software, but leaves open how you do it, and doesn't require you to mark individual files.
smaddox 5y ago
I guess I assumed you only need to be clear about the modifications if you are not also releasing them as Apache 2.0. is that not the case? If not, is there any other similar standard license with a patent clause that I could use?

xxpor 5y ago

The "default" license for Java libraries being Apache 2.0 shouldn't be overlooked as a reason for the success of Java in the corporate world IMO. It's a perfect license to make corp lawyers comfortable.