Ingo Schwarze [[email protected]] wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > > kbenjamin Coplon wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 01:23:43PM -0400: > > > What does the OpenBSD community think about the LLVM proposal to move > > to the Apache license? > > > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-September/104778.html > > If LLVM would move to the Apache 2 license, we would become unable > to use versions released after that change, and would be stuck with > version released before the change, just like we are stuck with > pre-GPLv3 gcc now. So it would be very bad for us. > > See http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html : > > Apache > The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, > but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license > is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included > into OpenBSD. > > In a nutshell, OpenBSD does not consider software released under > Apache 2 to be free software. At least not free enough for us. >
One major problem with the Apache 2.0 license is the fact that it is not merely a software license, but extends out into contract law. This has been a concern with many licenses, not just Apache. If you use Apache 2.0 license code, you lose rights that you otherwise retain under the MIT or BSD license. Just review sections 3 and 4. The patent clause in section 3 is an issue. https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt Chris
