Ralph Castain <r...@open-mpi.org> writes: > I'm not a lawyer, but that agreement was formulated by the lawyers of > several national labs, universities, and corporations back at the very > beginning of the project, and so that's what we have to use.
MPICH does the same thing, but the CLA grants permission to redistribute under the terms of the Apache-2.0 license, yet the product is being distributed under a license that is not compatible with Apache-2.0. Even more strongly, lots of BSD-style permissive software is incorporated into GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1 distributions (this direction is well-tested). Meanwhile, Apache-2.0 is famously incompatible with GPLv2 and LGPLv2.1. "Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in that GPL version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions." -- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 License compatibility is a transitive property, so you certainly can't distribute Apache-2.0 software under a BSD-style license (as shown in the compatibility chart I posted). > According to the lawyers, it is indeed compatible. I'll let them argue > it :-) I'd be interested in hearing the legal argument for why the apparent incompatibility is legally acceptable. I'm not familiar with other projects using this particular combination.
pgpUsrdSu_T8q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
