Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

The new apache license

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Theo de Raadt

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 6:40:37 PM2/18/04
to
And another license issue..

The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
new license will never go into our tree.

Look, I am quite frankly getting sick and tired of this. It is time
for the user community to tell these software developers who have
gotten themselves involved with lawyers to stop it. They are NOT
making their software better, they are NOT protecting anyone, and
they we NOT making their software any more free when they add new
terms.

As of this moment in time, therefore, it looks like the httpd in
OpenBSD has now become a fork. It will continue to be managed
under the existing license.

Bryan Irvine

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 6:50:44 PM2/18/04
to
> The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> new license will never go into our tree.

aarrgh!

> Look, I am quite frankly getting sick and tired of this. It is time
> for the user community to tell these software developers who have
> gotten themselves involved with lawyers to stop it. They are NOT
> making their software better, they are NOT protecting anyone, and
> they we NOT making their software any more free when they add new
> terms.

Same here.
Perhaps if someone better with words than I could create a petition for
Xnotsofree86 and apache, at petitiononline.com and post it here?

Anyone think this will do any good?

--Bryan

Christopher M. Ingram

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 7:11:53 PM2/18/04
to
No. But it really should be tried. I'd certainly sign.

Regardless, whoever does write something up (if they do) should be
careful to mention the fact that we understand they want their credit,
but the strings attached with many of the licenses just cause too much
pain. I'm all for giving credit, and it should be done wherever
possible, but having the helpful install run-through in the OpenBSD CD
booklet (does that still happen? Last time I bought was 3.0) replaced
with licenses would be a big waste.

Slightly OT: Developers, I can't say I'm a great BSD programmer, but if
I can find a way to help the project out more (donations of cash and/or
hardware, time, decent code, anything that will be useful) I'll will
certainly apply it to easing the unnecessary pain these licenses cause
you guys.
--
Christopher M. Ingram
http://www.christopheringram.com, http://techdiscussions.com
http://lineman.net, http://secomgroup.com

Douglas Philips

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 7:46:04 PM2/18/04
to
On Feb 18, 2004, at 6:38 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> new license will never go into our tree.

Well, that is their perogative...

> Look, I am quite frankly getting sick and tired of this. It is time
> for the user community to tell these software developers who have
> gotten themselves involved with lawyers to stop it.

And they'd believe us over their lawyers because? I got sick of wading
through their mailing list archives...

> As of this moment in time, therefore, it looks like the httpd in
> OpenBSD has now become a fork. It will continue to be managed
> under the existing license.

Given the hyperbole on their website and how just pleased as punch they
are with their new license and rollout, I doubt there is any other
option (I hate to be doom and gloom, grrrr..).

(Paypal just helped me put my money where my OS-heart is...)

<D\'gou

Henning Brauer

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 7:51:39 PM2/18/04
to
* Theo de Raadt <der...@cvs.openbsd.org> [2004-02-19 00:40]:
> And another license issue..

lic...@apache.org is the mailing list to make your concerns heard.

--
http://2suck.net/hhwl.html - http://www.bsws.de/
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)

Diana Eichert

unread,
Feb 18, 2004, 8:47:13 PM2/18/04
to
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> And another license issue..


>
> The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> new license will never go into our tree.
>

> Look, I am quite frankly getting sick and tired of this. It is time
> for the user community to tell these software developers who have

> gotten themselves involved with lawyers to stop it. They are NOT
> making their software better, they are NOT protecting anyone, and
> they we NOT making their software any more free when they add new
> terms.
>

> As of this moment in time, therefore, it looks like the httpd in
> OpenBSD has now become a fork. It will continue to be managed
> under the existing license.

What about having a more simplistic httpd server in the tree, such as
Art's ursus? ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz

Then letting someone create/maintain port for the 1.3.x and 2.x line?

diana

Mayuresh Kathe

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 12:15:22 AM2/19/04
to
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Diana Eichert wrote:

> What about having a more simplistic httpd server in the tree, such as
> Art's ursus? ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz

I would recommend "thttpd" (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/)
Its lean mean and supports PHP/MySQL.

~Mayuresh

Marcus Andree S. Magalhaes

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 12:25:19 AM2/19/04
to
I love thttpd. We use it on a heavy duty site, but its php support
is a bit precarious and we have a couple issues with memory leaks

Dan Weeks

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 12:28:52 AM2/19/04
to
>>>>> "MK" == "Mayuresh Kathe" <mayu...@vsnl.com>:
MK> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Diana Eichert wrote:
MK>
>> What about having a more simplistic httpd server in the tree, such as
>> Art's ursus? ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz
MK>
MK> I would recommend "thttpd" (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/)

If you don't know, ursus, started life as thttpd. http://www.blahonga.org/

-d

David Gwynne

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 12:35:51 AM2/19/04
to
On Thu, 2004-02-19 at 15:19, Marcus Andree S. Magalhaes wrote:
> I love thttpd. We use it on a heavy duty site, but its php support
> is a bit precarious and we have a couple issues with memory leaks
>
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Diana Eichert wrote:
> >
> >> What about having a more simplistic httpd server in the tree, such as
> >> Art's ursus? ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz
> >
> > I would recommend "thttpd" (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/)
> > Its lean mean and supports PHP/MySQL.
> >
I believe art@'s web server is a fork of thttpd with a few cleanups (I
think it started out as a test to see how well an alternative to CVS
would cope with formatting changes in code, and progressed when he
started noticing bugs) and changes (eq, I think it uses kqueues now).

> > ~Mayuresh
>


--
Scanned and found clear for viruses by entirescan http://www.entirescan.com/

Morten Liebach

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 4:05:45 AM2/19/04
to
On 2004-02-18 21:22:45 -0800, Dan Weeks wrote:
> >>>>> "MK" == "Mayuresh Kathe" <mayu...@vsnl.com>:
> MK> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Diana Eichert wrote:
> MK>
> >> What about having a more simplistic httpd server in the tree, such as
> >> Art's ursus? ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz
> MK>
> MK> I would recommend "thttpd" (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/)
>
> If you don't know, ursus, started life as thttpd. http://www.blahonga.org/

The front page does not mention ursus. It does however say:

"The web server software serving these pages is an experiment that ran
away. I needed something to test the opencm configuration management
system and at the same time I was involved in a heated discussion
about bloated web servers. I decided to take thttpd and just do a
bunch of changes to it to get a feeling of the code so that I could
work on it and to test opencm at the same time. The whole thing
snowballed and at some point I realized that I: 1. Made some huge
unnecessary changes (reindented the whole code to test the merge
mechanisms of opencm) to thttpd that would never be accepted by the
main thttpd developers. 2. Made some very neat hacks to thttpd that
actually improved the code while making it smaller. I decided that
noone would get hurt if I forked off my own httpd and since then I've
been slowly improving the code of ahttpd. It still hasn't seen a
public release because I haven't rewritten the ugliest (and possibly
most infested with security bugs) part of the code yet, but it will
get there eventually."

I suppose ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ahttpd-1.0a.tar.gz is an alpha
version.

Have a nice day
Morten

--
http://m.mongers.org/ || See headers for more info.

Artur Grabowski

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 6:22:35 AM2/19/04
to
Morten Liebach <m...@mongers.org> writes:

> I suppose ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ahttpd-1.0a.tar.gz is an alpha
> version.

oops. Fixed. Thou shalt not use that code, because it's ancient and
it stinks. Removed.

Basically. Anything you might find on my ftp server is dangerous and will
blow up your house and kill your dog unless I publish somewhere that it
doesn't suck.

//art

Diana Eichert

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 9:09:33 AM2/19/04
to
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:

>
> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Diana Eichert wrote:
>
> > What about having a more simplistic httpd server in the tree, such as
> > Art's ursus? ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz
>

> I would recommend "thttpd" (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/)

> Its lean mean and supports PHP/MySQL.
>

> ~Mayuresh

Have you looked at Art's code?

Diana Eichert

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 9:13:52 AM2/19/04
to
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Morten Liebach wrote:
SNIP

> I suppose ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ahttpd-1.0a.tar.gz is an alpha
> version.
>
> Have a nice day

No, the ursus code is more recent. Art renamed it.

Diana Eichert

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 9:19:12 AM2/19/04
to
On 19 Feb 2004, Artur Grabowski wrote:
SNIP

> Basically. Anything you might find on my ftp server is dangerous and will
> blow up your house and kill your dog unless I publish somewhere that it
> doesn't suck.
>
> //art

BUT I like blowing up houses, though I'm not to big on the killing dog's
thing, killing cats, now that's another story.

I see, ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz, is still there,
though it does come with a "blow up your house and kill your dog"
disclaimer!

Henning Brauer

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 9:50:20 AM2/19/04
to
* Diana Eichert <deic...@wrench.com> [2004-02-19 08:39]:

> What about having a more simplistic httpd server in the tree, such as
> Art's ursus? ftp://ftp.blahonga.org/pub/ursus-20030927.tar.gz

look, that is not the point.

the point is that more and more free software is slowly getting unfree,
more restrictive, etc, and that is not something we should just
passively watch.
please have a look at the new apache license.
it is not really parsable without consulting a lawyer, and as this
license seems to go into the contract law land, the lawyers answer
migth very well be a differing depending on in which country you are.

so don't let us just watch a former-bsd-licensed projet fuck up their
licensing beyong all recognition, raise your voice. and do that on
lic...@apache.org so it is heard.

Rob Pickering

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 10:29:05 AM2/19/04
to
--On 18 February 2004 16:38 -0700 Theo de Raadt
<der...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote:
>
> The new apache license is not acceptable.

I don't like the new license either just because the amount of lawyer
speak makes it much less clear.

I can't see anything in it that makes it less free though. What am I
missing?

Specifically section 4 seems to be the only part that addresses
redistribution and derivatives. Apart from requirements to add
notices to derivative files I don't see any other new non-cosmetic
limitations over and above BSD.

All the other guff (patent rights etc) seem to give me more rights
than BSD. Maybe it's just the fact that I need a lawyer to be sure of
this that is the problem.

--
Rob.

Miod Vallat

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 10:39:55 AM2/19/04
to
> I don't like the new license either just because the amount of lawyer
> speak makes it much less clear.

I personnaly consider than a license which I can't understand without
help, because I'm neither a lawyer nor a person with a strong legal
knowledge is significantly less free than a license everyone with a
brain can understand...

Miod

Darren Reed

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 11:14:08 AM2/19/04
to
In some mail from Rob Pickering, sie said:
>
> All the other guff (patent rights etc) seem to give me more rights
> than BSD. Maybe it's just the fact that I need a lawyer to be sure of
> this that is the problem.

Ah, I was wondering if patents would have something to do with this.

For better or worse, that's something you are on your own with when
it comes to nearly all open source projects (whether or not an open
source project infringes on someone else's I.P.)

I can understand people wanting to see those there and why people
would add them.

Darren

Mayuresh Kathe

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 11:21:19 AM2/19/04
to
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Diana Eichert wrote:

> > I would recommend "thttpd" (http://www.acme.com/software/thttpd/)
> > Its lean mean and supports PHP/MySQL.
> >
>

> Have you looked at Art's code?

As per him, its still in dangerous mode...

~Mayuresh

Balazs Nagy

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 11:41:49 AM2/19/04
to
On Feb 19, 2004, at 8:22 AM, Rob Pickering wrote:

> --On 18 February 2004 16:38 -0700 Theo de Raadt
> <der...@cvs.openbsd.org> wrote:
>>
>> The new apache license is not acceptable.
>

> I can't see anything in it that makes it less free though. What am I
> missing?

When you have to spend a minimum of $1,200 to have
someone interpret the meaning of the license, you
left far behind free software territory.

Cheers,
Balázs

http://www.thenewpush.com


Cheers,
Balázs

http://www.thenewpush.com

Bryan Irvine

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 12:06:31 PM2/19/04
to
> I can't see anything in it that makes it less free though. What am I
> missing?

What aboout this?

"If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a
Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to
You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such
litigation is filed."

If you sue anyone, your right to use _ANY_ software with the apache
license is revoked.

That the way I parse it anyway.
Someone correct me because I really don't want to read it this way.


--Bryan

gabe f

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 12:27:19 PM2/19/04
to
No, This is the entire section:

``3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except
as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer
to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such
license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such
Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s)
alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which
such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation

against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within
the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then
any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work

shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.''

--> Which means that if you were using Apache for any reason, and then
said
that either Apache or one of its components (Contributions) was
a patent infringement to your product, then you can no longer use
Apache.

Edward A. Gardner

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 1:42:08 PM2/19/04
to
At 16:38 18-02-2004, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>And another license issue..
>
>The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
>new license will never go into our tree.

I've reviewed the Apache licenses (both old and new), the OpenBSD license
policy page (policy.html), the Apache license discussion archives, and the
discussion on misc. I have not been able to determine what is
objectionable about the new Apache license. Could you please clarify
this? It is difficult to object to Apache, et.al. without knowing what one
is supposed to object to.

Possibilities that come to mind:

1. The old Apache license was essentially identical to the BSD
license. The new Apache license is very different (to put it
mildly). OpenBSD's policy is to only include software (in the kernel and
similar core functions) covered by the BSD license or a license essentially
identical to the BSD license.

2. The new Apache license is too complex. Any license that tempts one to
consult a lawyer is unacceptable. (This is similar to #1 but not quite the
same -- could a simple license that was not identical to the BSD license be
acceptable?)

3. The redistribution requirements are unacceptable. Note that, by my
reading, the only difference is the requirement to include the Apache
license and NOTICE text files in the relevant tar ball. As these will be
part of the Apache source tree, this doesn't seem onerous. Am I missing
something?

4. Some other specific clause is unacceptable, such as clause 3 (patent
licensing).


Note to those reading this on misc: the Xfree86 and Apache license are very
different and may have different issues. In particular, clause 2 of the
Xfree86 license requires that binary distributions include the entire text
of the license "in the same place and form as other copyright, license and
disclaimer information". That means, for example, that if a copyright
statement appears on the face of a CD, then the entire Xfree86 license must
also appear on the face of the CD, which is physically difficult if not
impossible.

Reminder: further discussion of the Xfree86 license belongs on their forum,
not here on misc. All that is appropriate for misc is OpenBSD's license
policy.


Edward A. Gardner eag at ophidian dot com
Ophidian Designs 719 593-8866 voice
1262 Hofstead Terrace 719 210-7200 cell
Colorado Springs, CO 80907

Bakken, Luke

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 2:44:19 PM2/19/04
to
> 3. The redistribution requirements are unacceptable. Note
> that, by my
> reading, the only difference is the requirement to include the Apache
> license and NOTICE text files in the relevant tar ball. As
> these will be
> part of the Apache source tree, this doesn't seem onerous.

Yes, it's onerous.

> 4. Some other specific clause is unacceptable, such as
> clause 3 (patent
> licensing).

Yes, that clause restricts your litigation rights.

Renzo Fabriek

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 3:00:46 PM2/19/04
to
On 19 februari 2004 08:58, wrote Henning Brauer:

> so don't let us just watch a former-bsd-licensed projet fuck up their
> licensing beyong all recognition, raise your voice. and do that on
> lic...@apache.org so it is heard.

Did it already, and it felt GOOD to express my opinion. :-) (not a flame)
My opinion is not important i am just a (Open)BSD user. There many others
who's opinion would count.
I only felt like doing something. I hope that many of you will do the same.
I believe strongly in "shared technology". (i mean all technology)

--
Greetings
Renzo Fabriek

dereck

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 3:17:59 PM2/19/04
to
I did as well. This tendency toward "full-employment-for attorneys" has
to be protested. (We may not be able to stop it, but we can at least
remind them of our displeasure.) Maybe widespread forking can reverse
this insanity?

The _lack_ of hair-splitting is the advantage of non-GNU licensing. Why
the heck is the Apache group giving this up for a convoluted and
incomprehensible license? Maybe Apache has been hunkering down with the
FSF lawyers? Next we'll start hearing the "interpretations" (indeed, it
seems to already have begun on this list!).

WTF?
dereck

Nick Holland

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 3:30:47 PM2/19/04
to
"Edward A. Gardner" wrote:
>
> At 16:38 18-02-2004, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >And another license issue..
> >
> >The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> >new license will never go into our tree.
>
> I've reviewed the Apache licenses (both old and new), the OpenBSD license
> policy page (policy.html), the Apache license discussion archives, and the
> discussion on misc. I have not been able to determine what is
> objectionable about the new Apache license. Could you please clarify
> this? It is difficult to object to Apache, et.al. without knowing what one
> is supposed to object to.
>
> Possibilities that come to mind:
>
> 1. The old Apache license was essentially identical to the BSD
> license.

*similar*

> The new Apache license is very different (to put it
> mildly). OpenBSD's policy is to only include software (in the kernel and
> similar core functions) covered by the BSD license or a license essentially
> identical to the BSD license.

Policy prefers BSD license.
Other _acceptable_ licenses are ok when no alternative exists.
A license going from acceptable to less acceptable is NOT OK.

> 2. The new Apache license is too complex. Any license that tempts one to
> consult a lawyer is unacceptable. (This is similar to #1 but not quite the
> same -- could a simple license that was not identical to the BSD license be
> acceptable?)

Definitely.
Think a moment...
Old license is acceptable, and basicly follows our philosophy of "do
whatever you want with the code". New license is longer. Can they
possibly be saying we can do MORE with the code? NO. There is NO WAY
a new license could give MORE rights than the BSD license, except to
say you no longer have to respect the original authors, or you could
hold the authors liable for quality of code, and that would be a
shorter license, not a longer one. Got it?

Could a simple license that had a few words different than the BSD
license be acceptable? Well...maybe. It would have to be looked over
very closely. VERY closely. See my point #5 below...

> 3. The redistribution requirements are unacceptable. Note that, by my
> reading, the only difference is the requirement to include the Apache
> license and NOTICE text files in the relevant tar ball. As these will be

> part of the Apache source tree, this doesn't seem onerous. Am I missing
> something?

Maybe. Once I find one reason it is unacceptable, I quit looking
closely, and I can think of things better to try to figure out. 8)

If it is longer, it is probably more annoying.

The decision about onerousness to the OpenBSD project is Theo's to
make, not yours. The suitability for your use is yours to make.



> 4. Some other specific clause is unacceptable, such as clause 3 (patent
> licensing).

The "BSD acceptable" patent clause would be something like "we don't
give a rat's butt about your patents or our patents or that guy over
there's patents one way or another". Anything else is a restriction
on usage of the code, therefore, unacceptable.

[has "rat's butt" ever been used in a legal document before?]

They are taking stuff away here.
We don't like that.
What's so hard to understand about this?


you forgot this major point:
5) The new license is new and untried and unknown.
The BSD license is understood.
The GPL license is (more or less) understood.
This thing comes out of left field, and it means what? WHO KNOWS?
Might there be some small phrase missing or present, subject to
(mis/re/)interpretation? Could this lead to another SCO issue a few
years down the road?

People who opt to "go it alone" and write their own license typically
screw up.

People who hire lawyers forget one key fact: lawyers are in business
to keep things ambigious. No wonder they hate the BSD license:
there's nothing left to interpret. Just sits there and makes things
clear. Lawyers don't repay lawschool loans by writing clear and
simple contracts. They leave things open to interpretation, so 1) you
get sued and 2) they get to defend you 3) You sue others 4) They
represent you. If you get sued, they win, you lose (even if you win
the suit, you still waste money and resources and time). If you sue,
they win, you may or may not win. The lawyers ALWAYS win. The rest
are just along to provide the money the lawyers win.

How many lawyers have made money interpreting the BSD license?
Probably not a lot. Simple. Elegant. Open.


How many licenses do you want to have in OpenBSD?
You want a "Usability guide", spelling out what parts of the tree are
usable for what applications? Oh, but that would have to have legal
disclaimers itself, saying, "This is not the license, just one
possible interpretation. You have to follow the license you can't
understand". That's not what we are about.

We want OpenBSD to be usable. For anything. Anywhere. By anyone.
What part of this is hard to understand?

Hoping a license doesn't bite you in the butt is like hoping a coding
error doesn't bite you in the butt. That's not what we are about
here.


It is probably worth pointing out: they have the right to do with
_their code_ what they wish. We have the right to be pissed off about
it, refuse to use it, and/or fork it, but no right to demand they fit
our wishes. But we can express our concerns and desires, and let them
know what the consequences of their actions will be.

Nick.
--
http://www.holland-consulting.net

Rob Pickering

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 3:51:41 PM2/19/04
to
--On 19 February 2004 09:00 -0800 Bryan Irvine
<bryan....@kingcountyjournal.com> wrote:
> What aboout this?
>
> "If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
> cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or
> a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or
> contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted
> to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the
> date such litigation is filed."
>
> If you sue anyone, your right to use _ANY_ software with the apache
> license is revoked.
>
> That the way I parse it anyway.
> Someone correct me because I really don't want to read it this way.

I don't want to defend this licence, but that certainly isn't the way I
parse it.

I read it as: "The license gives you the right not to be harassed by a
contributor who claims patent rights over the implementation. If however
you then harass a contributor by claiming patent rights yourself over parts
of the implementation then you loose this right"

A BSD license doesn't grant you the right not to be harassed on patent
grounds by a contributor at all. I don't see why a licence which grants
this extra right but then specifies grounds under which it can be revoked
is less free. Except of course that the extra complexity means you need a
lawyer to parse the licence and this in any case may not be what it says.

--
Rob.

Marc Matteo

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 4:08:56 PM2/19/04
to
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Artur Grabowski wrote:

> Basically. Anything you might find on my ftp server is dangerous and will
> blow up your house and kill your dog unless I publish somewhere that it
> doesn't suck.

I don't think the FSF would find that an acceptable license :).

Marc

gabe f

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 4:31:18 PM2/19/04
to
Nick Holland wrote:
[...]

>>4. Some other specific clause is unacceptable, such as clause 3 (patent
>>licensing).
>
>
> The "BSD acceptable" patent clause would be something like "we don't
> give a rat's butt about your patents or our patents or that guy over
> there's patents one way or another". Anything else is a restriction
> on usage of the code, therefore, unacceptable.
>
> [has "rat's butt" ever been used in a legal document before?]
>
> They are taking stuff away here.
> We don't like that.
> What's so hard to understand about this?
>

is it easy to understand, or hard? make up your mind.

>
> you forgot this major point:
> 5) The new license is new and untried and unknown.
> The BSD license is understood.
> The GPL license is (more or less) understood.
> This thing comes out of left field, and it means what? WHO KNOWS?

you don't have to be a lawyer to understand contracts, but you do
have to be patient, diligent, able to do some logic operations
and substitute variables (eg. terms like "the Work"). If that's not
you, then defer.

> Might there be some small phrase missing or present, subject to
> (mis/re/)interpretation?

That _is_ what lawyers and judges and legislators are for. And the
precious BSD license is not immune from that.

> Could this lead to another SCO issue a few
> years down the road?
>

Are you refering to the Apache patent section? They give "perpetual"
and unrestricted patent license -- that is specifically stating the
opposite of what you are worried about. The second sentance in that
sentance is a sanction on those who sue them -- it doesn't limit
anyone's litigation rights (which you couldn't do, anyway -- whoever
stated that in another post). Reread that section a few times, it
might even be in response to the SCO litigation -- specifically
it would mean that a "future SCO" would not be allowed to use Apache
in their distribution as soon as they said Apache had the "future
SCO"'s code in it.

> People who opt to "go it alone" and write their own license typically
> screw up.
>
> People who hire lawyers forget one key fact: lawyers are in business
> to keep things ambigious.

Please. And open source programmers are in the business of hacking
into Corporate computer systems.

>
[...]


>
> We want OpenBSD to be usable. For anything. Anywhere. By anyone.
> What part of this is hard to understand?
>

Well, the only type of difference the new license would have made is
that
Microsoft would have had to cite in their copyright section (you know,
the part of a software install where you have to "agree" to the
terms, not a logo copyright for a CD cover) that they have
incorporated BSD code.

> Hoping a license doesn't bite you in the butt is like hoping a coding
> error doesn't bite you in the butt. That's not what we are about
> here.
>

agreed. don't hope, don't say "who knows?" -- find out for sure.

>
> It is probably worth pointing out: they have the right to do with
> _their code_ what they wish. We have the right to be pissed off about
> it, refuse to use it, and/or fork it, but no right to demand they fit
> our wishes. But we can express our concerns and desires, and let them
> know what the consequences of their actions will be.
>
> Nick.

yay! agreed.

Kent R. Spillner

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 5:59:27 PM2/19/04
to
gabe f wrote:
> you don't have to be a lawyer to understand contracts, but you do
> have to be patient, diligent, able to do some logic operations
> and substitute variables (eg. terms like "the Work"). If that's not
> you, then defer.

Have you learned nothing from SCO's shenanigans? If law were logical
we wouldn't need courts. Instead, anyone with an agenda and deep
pockets is a threat to unsuspecting software projects.

Think of a license as you would software: simplicity is often a very
important element of security. The more verbiage in a license, the
greater the possibility of ambiguity, the greater the opportunity for
exploitation.

That's why people like the ISC license. Its short and sweet, says what
it means, means what it says, and doesn't fuck around with words or
grammar.

>> Might there be some small phrase missing or present, subject to
>> (mis/re/)interpretation?
>
> That _is_ what lawyers and judges and legislators are for. And the
> precious BSD license is not immune from that.

Say what now?

Ahhhh... damn it! You're just a troll. Congrats, you had me fooled
there for a sec. I'm such a loser. =(

(FYI, Theo has previously mentioned that he discusses software licenses
with lawyers. Search the archives. Or start here:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=105521759525315&w=2

If he's not worried about "the precious BSD license" its because he
doesn't need to be.)

-Kent

Message has been deleted

Richard Welty

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 6:55:15 PM2/19/04
to
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:30:03 +0100 Rembrandt <remb...@jpberlin.de> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:38:08 -0700
> der...@cvs.openbsd.org (Theo de Raadt) wrote:

> > And another license issue..

> > The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> > new license will never go into our tree.

> And what would you do?!
> Delete the source out of our tree?
> And then? Then what? We've no Apache...?! Apache would be avaiable as
> port/package?!
> I think oBSD (just the project itself) has not enough coders to develop
> all the projects wich are changing the license into an unacceptable one
> now or in the future.
> So deleting withount an replacement isn't a REAl solution. :/

you need to work on your reading comprehension. quite a bit, i think.

Theo didn't say anything about deleting apache from the tree. what
Theo said is that code written under the new license won't go into
the tree.

this means that there will be a code fork. in all likelyhood, this
means that the version of apache in the tree will be in maintenence
mode until some developer picks it up, or an alternative http daemon
with more appropriate licensing is introduced in its place.

richard
--
Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

Rod.. Whitworth

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 7:06:11 PM2/19/04
to
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:30:03 +0100, Rembrandt wrote:

>On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:38:08 -0700
>der...@cvs.openbsd.org (Theo de Raadt) wrote:
>
>> And another license issue..
>>
>> The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
>> new license will never go into our tree.
>
>And what would you do?!
>Delete the source out of our tree?
>And then? Then what? We've no Apache...?! Apache would be avaiable as
>port/package?!

<snip rest of crap>

See what it said? "new licence"

The new licence does not apply to code covered by the old licence, only
to new code or a combined package of old and new.

As long as updates with the new licence do not pollute what we already
have, we are fine.

Nobody can retrospectively take away permission already granted unless
they reserved the right to do that in the first place. Even then it is
doubtful they could make it stick unless they notified users in
writing. Fat chance.

Never heard of a fork?

From the land "down under": Australia.
Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over?

Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list.
Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server.

Damien Miller

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 7:38:17 PM2/19/04
to
Richard Welty wrote:

> this means that there will be a code fork. in all likelyhood, this
> means that the version of apache in the tree will be in maintenence
> mode until some developer picks it up, or an alternative http daemon
> with more appropriate licensing is introduced in its place.

Given the general lack of desire to move to apache-2.x (I'm not just
referring to OpenBSD here either), this doesn't represent much of a
change from the status quo.

OTOH having a webserver that doesn't do IPv6 is a pain.

-d

Jack J. Woehr

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 8:01:42 PM2/19/04
to
Rembrandt wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:38:08 -0700
> der...@cvs.openbsd.org (Theo de Raadt) wrote:
>
> > And another license issue..
> >
> > The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> > new license will never go into our tree.
>

> I think oBSD (just the project itself) has not enough coders to develop
> all the projects wich are changing the license into an unacceptable one
> now or in the future.

I think Theo has a real concern. OpenBSD has survived technically by being
tight, small and clean, and that's how it has survived legally. The OpenBSD
community doesn't have the resources for getting entangled in other
people's licenses. If there's any legal doubt, if it's any more complicated
than the BSD license, we're not the community to defend it, even if we are
in the right. Being right can be expensive :-)

I agree that Apache might have to move to ports to help shield OpenBSD
from potlatch-style legal attacks ("I have more money to burn on lawyers
than you have!!")

--
Jack J. Woehr # We have gone from the horse and buggy
Senior Consultant # to the moon rocket in one lifetime, but
Purematrix, Inc. # there has not been a corresponding moral
www.purematrix.com # growth in mankind. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Steve

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 10:05:07 PM2/19/04
to
On Thursday 19 February 2004 06:59 pm, Rod.. Whitworth wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:30:03 +0100, Rembrandt wrote:
> >On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:38:08 -0700
> >
> >der...@cvs.openbsd.org (Theo de Raadt) wrote:
> >> And another license issue..
> >>
> >> The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> >> new license will never go into our tree.
> >
> >And what would you do?!
> >Delete the source out of our tree?
> >And then? Then what? We've no Apache...?! Apache would be avaiable
> > as port/package?!
>
> <snip rest of crap>
>
> See what it said? "new licence"

Lice! Do we have lice?! : )
Sorry, could not resist...

> The new licence does not apply to code covered by the old licence,
> only to new code or a combined package of old and new.
>
> As long as updates with the new licence do not pollute what we
> already have, we are fine.
>
> Nobody can retrospectively take away permission already granted
> unless they reserved the right to do that in the first place. Even
> then it is doubtful they could make it stick unless they notified
> users in writing. Fat chance.
>
> Never heard of a fork?
>
> >From the land "down under": Australia.
>
> Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over?

!puY

> Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list.
> Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server.

--

"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

Sancho2k.net Lists

unread,
Feb 19, 2004, 10:43:34 PM2/19/04
to
Nick Holland wrote:

> How many licenses do you want to have in OpenBSD?
> You want a "Usability guide", spelling out what parts of the tree are
> usable for what applications? Oh, but that would have to have legal
> disclaimers itself, saying, "This is not the license, just one
> possible interpretation. You have to follow the license you can't

> understand". That's not what we are about.


>
> We want OpenBSD to be usable. For anything. Anywhere. By anyone.
> What part of this is hard to understand?

Only to dumb end users.

Think about people that have the biggest problems with decisions like
these. (The decision to fork based on licensing, for example.) What do
they want? Software for free. Not 'free' software. At least, not in the
glorious, open sense of the word. These users see software, they want
software, and f--k whether or not there is some license in their way to
hinder them getting to it. These are the same dimwits that love Windows
so much they will forego any licensing restrictions and get it off
bittorrent or whereever they can. Apache is their httpd of choice, so
they just want to use it regardless of what complications this may
impose. Licensing means nothing to them, legalities are annoying, but if
anything gets between them and their software for free, they get up in
arms about it.

The only people that will understand the reasoning are those that
understand the freedom, value the freedom, and comprehend just how far
these freedoms can go. And therefore, how restrictive it can be if
things are not *precise* and *clear* and *uncluttered*. For example, if
I need to set up a VPN server, I go right for isakmpd on openbsd because
I know that it is open, it is free, and I am free to use it without
having to consider what future difficulties my decision may pose.
There's comfort in this principle, there's peace of mind, there's
longevity, and there's security. Not aspects I'll find if I have to sort
through complicated licensing clauses to ensure that I can use it for
the purpose I envision. And I will do that, because I don't just blindly
use whatever program I feel like. Things just aren't that simple anymore.

Now, if these concepts don't appeal to anyone, you are of course free to
use an OS from a project that doesn't care about it. OpenBSD will
continue making these decisions and be better off because of it.

DS

gilles chehade

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 12:09:19 AM2/20/04
to
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:38:24PM -0700, Sancho2k.net Lists wrote:
> [...]

> hinder them getting to it. These are the same dimwits that love Windows
> so much they will forego any licensing restrictions and get it off
> bittorrent or whereever they can. Apache is their httpd of choice, so
> they just want to use it regardless of what complications this may
> impose. Licensing means nothing to them, legalities are annoying, but if
> [...]

its not like they are removing the ability to download and compile apache
from the official website, if apache was no longer in the system, that
would not mean that everyone would have to switch to a forked version
with no other choice.

> Now, if these concepts don't appeal to anyone, you are of course free to
> use an OS from a project that doesn't care about it. OpenBSD will
> continue making these decisions and be better off because of it.

'xactly :)

--
chehad_g@epit{a.fr,ech.net} aka. veins - promo 2006 [tech III]
Luna quiere ser madre, y no encuentras querer que haga mujer,
Dime luna de plata, que pretendes hacer con un nino de piel ?

Denis A. Doroshenko

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 4:23:18 AM2/20/04
to
On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:36:31AM +0000, Rob Pickering wrote:
> No sorry, the Patent clause seems to give extra rights: the right not
> to be sued by a contributor for using their code, so in that sense
> the extra length does seem to make the licence more free.

"give extra rights" you say? when somebody is given some rights,
perhaps some related rights are revoked from somebody else... so
answer, who is given the rights here?

> There has been a load of knee-jerk nonsense from people who clearly
> can't (or don't want to) read, asserting that this removes users
> rights to sue. It doesn't, it

> merely removes rights

> if they sue that
> they would never have had under a BSD licence in the first place.

so you say things that contradict to each other. in one place you say
"give extra rights", and in the next paragraph you go with "merely
removes rights". so what it really does: gives or removes?

Theo de Raadt

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 4:30:38 AM2/20/04
to
> No sorry, the Patent clause seems to give extra rights: the right not
> to be sued by a contributor for using their code, so in that sense
> the extra length does seem to make the licence more free.

That's funny; I cannot see any such thing being covered by copyright
law. As you may know, copyright law only allows you to keep or grant
away the rights covered by copyright law. And since this is a right
not discussed in copyright law, good god, it must not be a valid
copyright term.

> There has been a load of knee-jerk nonsense from people who clearly
> can't (or don't want to) read, asserting that this removes users
> rights to sue. It doesn't, it merely removes rights if they sue that
> they would never have had under a BSD licence in the first place.

Balony.

> What bothers me is a bunch of OpenBSD folks going over to Apache
> licensing lists making assertions that clauses like the patent clause
> make the license inherently less free based on poor analysis.

It is not free. There is no such thing as a "right to not be sued".

Janne Johansson

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 4:36:37 AM2/20/04
to
> the extra length does seem to make the licence more free.
>
> <CUT> asserting that this removes users rights
> to _DO_ONE_THING_. It doesn't, it merely removes rights if they _DO_SOMETHING_ELSE

Ok...
Such clauses of course adds rights.

I no native english speaker, but really...

Henning Brauer

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 7:29:01 AM2/20/04
to
* Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> [2004-02-20 12:31]:

> this means that there will be a code fork. in all likelyhood, this
> means that the version of apache in the tree will be in maintenence
> mode

apache 1.3 is in mainainance mode since at least two years so that's no
real change.
the only rtealc changes to it happened only in openbsd.... the chroot
and etag fluff we did.

--
http://2suck.net/hhwl.html - http://www.bsws.de/
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)

Ed White

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 9:06:10 AM2/20/04
to
It seems someone asked about it one month ago and got no answers...

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=107500806003793&w=2

Oh, look, it was me !


Ed

Kurt Miller

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 11:48:54 AM2/20/04
to
From: "Theo de Raadt" <der...@cvs.openbsd.org>

> From: "Rob Pickering" <r...@redbourne.com>
> > No sorry, the Patent clause seems to give extra rights:
> > the right not to be sued by a contributor for using their
> > code, so in that sense the extra length does seem to
> > make the license more free.
>
> That's funny; I cannot see any such thing being covered
> by copyright law. As you may know, copyright law only
> allows you to keep or grant away the rights covered by
> copyright law. And since this is a right not discussed in
> copyright law, good god, it must not be a valid copyright
> term.
>

Yes but don't Patent rights supercede copyrights? It doesn't
matter if the code is the same or not. If there is a Patent on it
then you need to have a Patent license granted to use it.

The BSD license is great for the original author of the code,
but what about people that submit enhancements to that code.
Suppose the enhancements are substantial enough to be
considered an original piece of work. What copyright license
has the author of the enhancement granted? The BSD license
doesn't seem to deal with this. At least it seems to me that only
the original author has granted the license.

Taking another example to the n'th degree; What if a malicious
committer patents an algorithm and then commits an
implementation for it? Suppose Henning had patented an
algorithm related to the new BGP damon and waited till it
was it being used in great numbers and then claimed royalties?
The BSD license surely doesn't deal with this.

Companies with deep pockets find open-source software to be
threatening. They have the resources and the will to attempt to
make free software not free. Copyrights and Patents are their
only tools to do this. The new Apache license attempts to deal
with these potential attacks. People who submit patches and
enhancements to Apache software are agreeing that the code
they submit is unencumbered. The price of the extra protection
is at the cost of additional terms, conditions and complexity.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the projects goal to only
include code in the base distribution that has the most free
license as possible. The change in Apache's license will result
in the project either; forking it, replacing it or moving it to ports.

I know you will do what you think is right for the project and
I will happily keep buying CDs (even after I likely get slammed
for posting this ;).

-Kurt

Renzo Fabriek

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 11:52:37 AM2/20/04
to
Op vrijdag 20 februari 2004 12:23, schreef Henning Brauer:

> * Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> [2004-02-20 12:31]:
> > this means that there will be a code fork. in all likelyhood, this
> > means that the version of apache in the tree will be in maintenence
> > mode
>
> apache 1.3 is in mainainance mode since at least two years so that's no
> real change.
> the only rtealc changes to it happened only in openbsd.... the chroot
> and etag fluff we did.

In my mail to them I have mentioned that it is not unthinkable that a fork
takes over Apache's market share because they do a better job and get
accepted by most off the OS projects and module developpers.
Isn't Red Hat stronghold server (initialy) based on OpenBSD's Apache?

--
Groeten
Renzo Fabriek

Kurt B. Kaiser

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 1:11:06 PM2/20/04
to
Theo de Raadt <der...@cvs.openbsd.org> writes:

> That's funny; I cannot see any such thing being covered by copyright
> law. As you may know, copyright law only allows you to keep or grant
> away the rights covered by copyright law.

Yes.

> And since this is a right not discussed in copyright law, good god,
> it must not be a valid copyright term.

The change withdraws the /patent/ license if the licensee abuses you
by suing for SW patent infringement while continuing to use your code.

The next frontier in the battle against OSS/Free SW is "trusted
computing" and patents. This is critical stuff, in my opinion.

Eben Moglen, whom I respect, has told Apache that the Version 2
license is incompatible with the GPL because of the patent clause,
which he feels is overly broad. He indicates that GPL 3 is likely to
include defensive language "designed to increase the collective
defense against patent abuse," and that FSF would like to work with
Apache to further develop a joint agreement:

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=lic...@apache.org&msgId=1127301

Moglen then goes on to imply that it's not going to work, anyway:

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=lic...@apache.org&msgNo=104

For those whose eyes haven't yet glazed over:

www.apache.org/licenses/ :
"The 2.0 version of the Apache License was approved by the ASF in
2004. The goals of this license revision have been to reduce the
number of frequently asked questions, to allow the license to be
reusable without modification by any project (including non-ASF
projects), to allow the license to be included by reference instead of
listed in every file, to clarify the license on submission of
contributions, to require a patent license on contributions that
necessarily infringe the contributor's own patents, and to move
comments regarding Apache and other inherited attribution notices to a
location outside the license terms (the NOTICE file)."

Note that it doesn't say anything about the revocation clause!

Finally, re patents and OSS/Free SW:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97358&cid=8320619

--
KBK

Chuck Yerkes

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 3:39:39 PM2/20/04
to

The name "apache" came from the fact that it was many patches to
the (previously common) NCSA httpd (my company, in fact, avoided
several holes found in that by using the CERN daemon - obscurity
can help as a *part* of your setup).

Eg. apache is already a fork.

But as Apache is etablished, the functionality of a smaller player
is vastly reduced because you won't have the tools and modules that
the larger player has. This can be in the form of log formats and
not having common tools be able to use them, to modules and web
building tools (php being the least of them).

I'd hope the issues could be resolved, but either way, I'm using
a hacked version of it.

The developers have better things to do that deal with license
stupidity.

Theo de Raadt

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 4:01:07 PM2/20/04
to
> The next frontier in the battle against OSS/Free SW is "trusted
> computing" and patents. This is critical stuff, in my opinion.

Bullshit, the next frontier is free projects becoming less free from
the inside, and the entire userbase showing utter and complete
indifference, and then 5 years from now discovering that the source
code is hard to get at, or hard to incorporate into products, and
voila... we get screwed again

Melameth, Daniel D.

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 4:44:06 PM2/20/04
to
On Feb 20, 2004, at 1:59 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> Bullshit, the next frontier is free projects becoming less free from
> the inside, and the entire userbase showing utter and complete
> indifference, and then 5 years from now discovering that the source
> code is hard to get at, or hard to incorporate into products, and
> voila... we get screwed again

I have to concur. It is free projects like OpenBSD, with their
exhaustive diligence towards preventing restrictive "legal nonsense,"
that truly benefit "all of mankind."

If you sincerely want to build something that anyone can use for any
purpose to make things better, you really have to GIVE IT AWAY. (...and

if you don't want to do this, simply attach a bunch of legal disclaimers

to whatever it is you are doing.)

Christopher M. Ingram

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 6:24:13 PM2/20/04
to
On Fri, 2004-02-20 at 15:59, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > The next frontier in the battle against OSS/Free SW is "trusted
> > computing" and patents. This is critical stuff, in my opinion.
>
> Bullshit, the next frontier is free projects becoming less free from
> the inside, and the entire userbase showing utter and complete
> indifference, and then 5 years from now discovering that the source
> code is hard to get at, or hard to incorporate into products, and
> voila... we get screwed again

I agree with this one. Even I myself don't care to some degree. So long
as the software works and is free (for now) I have a hard time seeing
why I need to be concerned. Most end users will just get the software
from the source, install, and not care.

If we hope to stop this, perhaps we should let the users feel a bit of
the angst? I this inconveniences them enough, they may be persuaded to
put more pressure on the people who are doing this. How to do this isn't
something I can say just yet. When Mandrake dropped XFree 4.4, Mandrake
users got mad at Mandrake, not the XFree86 project.

--
Christopher M. Ingram
http://www.christopheringram.com, http://techdiscussions.com
http://lineman.net, http://secomgroup.com

Damien Miller

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 7:05:58 PM2/20/04
to
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Kurt Miller wrote:

> The BSD license is great for the original author of the code,
> but what about people that submit enhancements to that code.
> Suppose the enhancements are substantial enough to be
> considered an original piece of work. What copyright license
> has the author of the enhancement granted? The BSD license
> doesn't seem to deal with this. At least it seems to me that only
> the original author has granted the license.

Rubbish, contributors can attach their own licenses if the work is
substantially modified. Or, they can extract their changes to another
file.

-d

gabe f

unread,
Feb 20, 2004, 8:58:22 PM2/20/04
to
Kurt B. Kaiser wrote:
[...]

> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=lic...@apache.org&msgId=1127301
>
> Moglen then goes on to imply that it's not going to work, anyway:
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=lic...@apache.org&msgNo=104
>
> For those whose eyes haven't yet glazed over:
>

nice links -- Moglen's got some really good criticisms.
We need someone like him on the BSD side.

If these changes and discussions don't improve the MATURITY of open
source licenses, I don't know what will.

Hanford, Seth

unread,
Feb 23, 2004, 11:31:25 AM2/23/04
to
> And another license issue..
>
> The new apache license is not acceptable. Code written under that
> new license will never go into our tree.

Quick question...

I'm reviewing the XFree86 1.1 and Apache 2.0 licenses. Clearly, Apache 2.0
is not compatible with a standard BSD license. However, XFree86 1.1 seems
very similar to Apache 1.1, which was acceptable for placement in the tree.

What is it about the XFree 1.1 versus the Apache 1.1 that makes XFree
unacceptable? Or is this a change in direction (or re-solidifying of
direction) that ensures that non-BSD licenses are not in the tree? If
Apache is to be forked to retain the old (1.1) license, why is XFree to not
be included with a similar license?

I'm not looking for flames/trolls/other ill effects here. Just curious.

Thanks,
Seth

0 new messages