3 ms·

I wish the Apache License was more popular. It's in the same spirit as the MIT License, but it provides more protections regarding patents, for example. This pr

by kudu 13y ago

I wish the Apache License was more popular. It's in the same spirit as the MIT License, but it provides more protections regarding patents, for example. This prevents the "bait and switch" method of licensing a work under a permissive license but restricting it under patent law.

jedbrown 13y ago
But it can't be used by software that chose BSD, MIT, MPL, LGPLv2.1, GPLv2, or other common licenses. This is fairly benign for an end-user application, but it's a restrictive choice for libraries. This is a handy chart: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html
- belorn 13y ago
  Apache is compatible with every one of those licenses except gplv2-only. Section 4 of the apache license says: "You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole" - https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html It can't be relicensed, but people has argued that you can't do that with BSD or other permissive licenses. You can't take BSD code and make it MIT, which restricts a MIT project if they want to only use the MIT license.
  - jedbrown 13y ago
    I don't interpret that to mean that you can violate the terms of the Apache license, but rather that modifications or derivative work can bear a different license. Every user is still bound by the terms of the Apache license, including the patent indemnification clause which does not appear in those other licenses. If you disagree, could you point me to a legal opinion? Note that OpenBSD still ships Apache 1.3 because they believe Apache 2.0 is incompatible. http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0402/msg01095.html http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0402/msg01095.html
    - belorn 13y ago
      Of course you can not violate the terms of the Apache license. Similar to BSD code in a MIT project, you need to follow the original license in order to be in compliance. David Wheeler arrows indicate that two licenses may be combined, and that the combined work can effectively be treated as having the license at the end of the arrow. If you pull BSD licensed code into MIT, you have to follow the BSD license and include a BSD copyright notice. more: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10903720/new-bsd-license-and-apache-license-compatibility https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10903720/new-bsd-license... http://www.epractice.eu/files/11-04-07_PhL_FLOSS_Licences_Compatibility_Issues_3.pdf http://www.epractice.eu/files/11-04-07_PhL_FLOSS_Licences_Co...
ExpiredLink 13y ago
> I wish the Apache License was more popular. In Java world it can hardly be more popular.
quadrangle 13y ago
Ugh Apache. What you are looking for is this: http://coil.apotheon.org/ http://coil.apotheon.org/

by kudu 13y ago

jedbrown 13y ago

But it can't be used by software that chose BSD, MIT, MPL, LGPLv2.1, GPLv2, or other common licenses. This is fairly benign for an end-user application, but it's a restrictive choice for libraries. This is a handy chart: http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/floss-license-slide.html

belorn 13y ago
Apache is compatible with every one of those licenses except gplv2-only. Section 4 of the apache license says: "You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole" - https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html It can't be relicensed, but people has argued that you can't do that with BSD or other permissive licenses. You can't take BSD code and make it MIT, which restricts a MIT project if they want to only use the MIT license.
- jedbrown 13y ago
  I don't interpret that to mean that you can violate the terms of the Apache license, but rather that modifications or derivative work can bear a different license. Every user is still bound by the terms of the Apache license, including the patent indemnification clause which does not appear in those other licenses. If you disagree, could you point me to a legal opinion? Note that OpenBSD still ships Apache 1.3 because they believe Apache 2.0 is incompatible. http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0402/msg01095.html http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0402/msg01095.html
  - belorn 13y ago
    Of course you can not violate the terms of the Apache license. Similar to BSD code in a MIT project, you need to follow the original license in order to be in compliance. David Wheeler arrows indicate that two licenses may be combined, and that the combined work can effectively be treated as having the license at the end of the arrow. If you pull BSD licensed code into MIT, you have to follow the BSD license and include a BSD copyright notice. more: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10903720/new-bsd-license-and-apache-license-compatibility https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10903720/new-bsd-license... http://www.epractice.eu/files/11-04-07_PhL_FLOSS_Licences_Compatibility_Issues_3.pdf http://www.epractice.eu/files/11-04-07_PhL_FLOSS_Licences_Co...

ExpiredLink 13y ago

> I wish the Apache License was more popular. In Java world it can hardly be more popular.

quadrangle 13y ago

Ugh Apache. What you are looking for is this: http://coil.apotheon.org/ http://coil.apotheon.org/