Roy, Since you forwarded me the beginning of your list's thread on ASL2 and GPL2 I have been preparing the analysis you quite rightly sought. I regret that the statement at gnu.org was, and is, inadequate to explain FSF's concerns; you have correctly inferred that I did not write it.
Today's statement by the Apache Foundation raises a new question for me, about which I had assumed that careful reading of your license would provide an answer, but which I answered for myself--after such a reading--differently than the Apache Foundation statement. I hope we can clarify both our views quickly, to avoid the public row that seems (unnecessarily so far as I can see) to be developing. For this purpose, I need to ask the question raised by today's statement: A developer, X, adds GPL'd code to Apache, and distributes the combination. The combined code, including the GPL'd code itself, practices the teaching of a patent, P, licensed under ASL2. A user, Y, asserts a defensive patent claim of infringement by Apache. Is the license to practice patent P in the GPL'd code added to Apache by X withdrawn or in force? Is the license as to the ASL code combined with the GPL code withdrawn or in force? I have been assuming, on the basis of the license text, which seemed clear to me, that the answer is "withdrawn/withdrawn." Your statement of today asserting GPL compatibility suggests that the answer must be "in force/in force." Can you help? Thanks and best regards. Eben -- Eben Moglen voice: 212-854-8382 Professor of Law fax: 212-854-7946 moglen@ Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027 columbia.edu General Counsel, Free Software Foundation http://moglen.law.columbia.edu -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3