Another Make

Wed Oct 11 00:06:00 GMT 2000

Hi,
On Tue, Oct 10, 2000 at 11:26:00PM -0700, Per Bothner wrote:
> Cedric Berger <cedric@wireless-networks.com> writes:
>> > Beside: If you really want a GPL Ant, there is an easier way to redo
> > anything: 
> > - Download Ant source
> > - Rename it Dog
> > - Stick the GPL license on it
> > - Give a few due acknowlegments
> > - That's it.
> > 
> > This is the beauty of the BSD license.
>> Er, that is not true for the original BSD license, which *conflicts*
> with the GPL, due to the "advertising clause". The newer BSD license
> does not have the advertising clause. The original Apache license was 
> basically the *old* BSD license, *with* the troublesome advertising
> clause. Ant has the Apache 1.1 license, which replaced the advertising
> clause with with what I might call a "credit clause":
>> 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must
> include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software
> developed by the Apache Software Foundation ( http://www.apache.org/ )."
> Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if
> and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
>> This does not have the practical problems of the old BSD license.
> However, it is still not clear if it is compatible with the GPL.
> I've brought this issue change to RMS's attention. Perhaps the next revision
> of the GPL could make clear that this kind of "credit clause" is ok.

The Apache 1.1 license is still not compatible with the GPL.
This clause seems to be compatible with the GPL. The Apache license is
not just the BSD license with a different advertising/credit clause but
also adds two trademark/name restriction clauses. And those extra clauses
are not GPL compatible. They try to use trademark law in a copyright license.
The following are quotes from the debian-legal mailinglist:
Richard Stallman writes:
> I believe clause 3 is compatible with the GPL, because the GPL has a
> stricter requirement.
>> Clauses 4 and 5 are incompatible with the GPL because they are stated
> as conditions of the license for the copyright. If similar
> requirements were based on the publicity right (which exists in
> certain jurisdctions), and/or on trademarks, then they would be
> compatible with the GPL.

and
> I believe that you can distribute a program under the GNU General Public
> License and a seperate Trademark license. That is what AbiSource does with
> AbiWord. And I don't think it restricts the freedom of the user since it
> is still allowed to distribute derived works.
>> I agree.
>> What does not seem to be compatible with the GPL is trying put any further
> restrictions on the user by invoking normal copyright law. By trying to use
> copyright law in the Apache license to restrict the rights of recipient to
> use an arbitrary word in the use of their derived work doesn't seem to be
> compatible with the GPL.
>> Right, that is where the incompatibility comes from.

But Brain Behlendorf and the Apache Foundation seem to want the Apache license
to be GPL compatible. And there were also people from the GNOME project
that wanted to use some Apache project code, but couldn't because it was
not GPL compatible. So if enough people contact them they might change
the license to be GPL compatible. (We had the same trouble with GNUJSP
and Apache JServ which are now completely seperate projects because
the code could not be shared.)
Cheers,
Mark