Comments on: Better Random Thoughts Than None At All http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/09/09/better-random-thoughts-than-none-at-all/ Words Sat, 06 Feb 2010 02:00:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Sree Kotay http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/09/09/better-random-thoughts-than-none-at-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2944 Sree Kotay Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:57:28 +0000 http://blog.vlad1.com/?p=92#comment-2944 So... the challenge with the Apache v2 license (unlike BSD or Apache v1) is that it includes both an explicit grant of the patents (no problem there), but also terminates that license to you if you sue the "granter" over patent infringements of those patents. It seems pretty fair and clean to me - basically it says, you can have a license to our patents related to this code, but that license TO THE PATENTS (not the code or anything else) is revoked if you sue us over THOSE PATENTS we licensed to you. So two problems: (1) it makes the lawyers nervous because its a not as "clean" as MPL, BSD, MIT, ZLIB, etc., and (2) the FSF considers the license incompatible with GPL v2 http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml I think they're nuts: even in their overview (link above) they mix the copyright, patent, and trademark clauses, but then again, I'm not a lawyer :) The Apache foundation does NOT agree with the FSF on this, btw: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html So… the challenge with the Apache v2 license (unlike BSD or Apache v1) is that it includes both an explicit grant of the patents (no problem there), but also terminates that license to you if you sue the “granter” over patent infringements of those patents.

It seems pretty fair and clean to me – basically it says, you can have a license to our patents related to this code, but that license TO THE PATENTS (not the code or anything else) is revoked if you sue us over THOSE PATENTS we licensed to you.

So two problems: (1) it makes the lawyers nervous because its a not as “clean” as MPL, BSD, MIT, ZLIB, etc., and (2) the FSF considers the license incompatible with GPL v2 http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml

I think they’re nuts: even in their overview (link above) they mix the copyright, patent, and trademark clauses, but then again, I’m not a lawyer :)

The Apache foundation does NOT agree with the FSF on this, btw: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

]]> By: popi http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/09/09/better-random-thoughts-than-none-at-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2902 popi Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:53:58 +0000 http://blog.vlad1.com/?p=92#comment-2902 2Funtomas It's Chromium license which is BSD... But I've seen Chromium use many projetcs in folders and let theirs originals licences: http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html 2Funtomas
It’s Chromium license which is BSD…

But I’ve seen Chromium use many projetcs in folders and let theirs originals licences:

http://code.google.com/chromium/terms.html

]]> By: Funtomas http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/09/09/better-random-thoughts-than-none-at-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2900 Funtomas Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:38:51 +0000 http://blog.vlad1.com/?p=92#comment-2900 Hasn't Google BSDed the Chrome license? Anyway, I wonder how Cairo stands against Skia. Any benchmark? Hasn’t Google BSDed the Chrome license? Anyway, I wonder how Cairo stands against Skia. Any benchmark?

]]> By: Ed Avis http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/09/09/better-random-thoughts-than-none-at-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2899 Ed Avis Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:08:51 +0000 http://blog.vlad1.com/?p=92#comment-2899 I don't understand the problem you suggest with the Apache licence v2 ('this creates difficulties in being able to reuse the Skia code in most projects'). It is just a permissive X11-style licence with an additional patent grant. It seems you could relicense the code under any terms you wanted (BSD, GPL, proprietary, whatever), and Wikipedia at least agrees with me, see : "The Apache License does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license nor even that it be distributed as free/open-source software. The Apache license only requires that a notice is kept informing recipients that Apache licensed code has been used." Is there some legal opinion saying that the Apache licence v2 cannot be treated as a permissive licence? Does the Apache Foundation agree with that opinion? I don’t understand the problem you suggest with the Apache licence v2 (‘this creates difficulties in being able to reuse the Skia code in most projects’). It is just a permissive X11-style licence with an additional patent grant. It seems you could relicense the code under any terms you wanted (BSD, GPL, proprietary, whatever), and Wikipedia at least agrees with me, see :

“The Apache License does not require modified versions of the software to be distributed using the same license nor even that it be distributed as free/open-source software. The Apache license only requires that a notice is kept informing recipients that Apache licensed code has been used.”

Is there some legal opinion saying that the Apache licence v2 cannot be treated as a permissive licence? Does the Apache Foundation agree with that opinion?

]]> By: Ian M http://blog.vlad1.com/2008/09/09/better-random-thoughts-than-none-at-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2898 Ian M Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:01:15 +0000 http://blog.vlad1.com/?p=92#comment-2898 There's no problem with Apache-licensed code - all you need to do is update your LGPL/GPL minimum version to version 3. There’s no problem with Apache-licensed code – all you need to do is update your LGPL/GPL minimum version to version 3.

]]>