Damn, too bad I don't have time to get into a license war right now, so
I understand if no one responds to this, since I may not make another
response. But a couple things:
I believe ASF and FSF are similar in that neither allow you to use
software licensed under their terms and distribute the new software
under a modified license that is incompatible with the original
license. I think GPL is even more explicit in that if you are
incorporating software under the GPL, you must make the new software
available under the GPL, no modified form is allowed. Maybe I am wrong
but I think you can use APL software and distribute under a modified
license as long as the terms of the APL are still being met. And it
makes no presumptions at all on what license you use for the portions of
the new software that are new.
It seems you are upset that the ASF has some flexibility in their
license, but not enough for your satisfaction. But you are quite happy
with the FSF for having no flexibility at all.
You say the FSF has said the SPL is okay as long as it says the GPL is a
100% valid alternative license. Are you saying the SPL was modified to
say, users of WebMacro are free to use WM under terms of the SPL or
alternatively they are free to use it under terms of the APL or GPL, and
the FSF was okay with this and the ASF was not? I find this hard to
believe. Or did you bend to the FSF's requirements and then try to
state that the SPL was "close enough" to the APL that it fit the
requirements under your view and it was not necessary to allow users the
same flexibility to use the APL as the GPL?
And please try to not get too preachy regarding your purity in regard to
"software freedom". You have said time and again that you work out
alternative licenses on a case by case basis. Maybe you have even taken
the occasional bit of money and followed a more conventional licensing
model? If you feel the FSF is the only open source organization which
is pure in its "software freedom" morality, then by all means go work
with them, quit all this sinning by adulterating with other
organizations, and have a clean conscience.
John McNally
Justin Wells wrote:
>
> For what it's worth when I was writing the original SPL I got an
> emailed opinion from Richard Stallman that it was compatible with
> the GNU GPL because it said that you could use the GNU GPL
> instead of the SPL. He actually reviewed several drafts of the SPL,
> and it changed several times to bring it into line with the
> principles of the FSF in other respects as well, just as I had
> changed it to bring it into line with the views of the ASF. We
> would have had a single license that worked for both communities
> had the ASF not been so belligerent.
>
> The FSF was much easier to deal with than the religious nutcases
> at the ASF. The FSF has consistent and well stated principles that
> they adhere to, and if you adhere to those principles as well then
> they accept your license.
>
> The only consistent principle ever followed by the ASF was
> effectively "not invented here".
>
> Anyway, I can produce those emails from Stallman if you wish to see
> his opinion on the matter of dual licensing. In that case the
> dual licensing was written right into the SPL, whereas now the
> GPL alternative is "non-sticky" since it has to be external
> to the Apache style license.
>
> Ugh, what a disaster you people created with your frankenstein
> non-free-software ASF license.
>
> Justin
>
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 09:47:27AM -0500, Justin Wells wrote:
> > Well you'll hear exactly the same from whoever else, it's a pretty
> > simple concept. The exact same principle is in effect when a software
> > company sells you a commercial license for a product that also has
> > some kind of evaluation license. It's their property, they can license
> > it under as many licenses as they like.
> >
> > You seem to think there is something magic about opensource licenses
> > that make them different, but there isn't. They're legally the same
> > as any other kind of license--there are no special laws just for
> > opensource software (which is actually a problem, since it's hard
> > to do exactly what we might want to do with the existing laws.)
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 01, 2000 at 01:37:32AM -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
> > > on 10/31/2000 10:10 PM, "Justin Wells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jon, hasn't this already been explained to you many times by now?
> > >
> > > Justin, I wasn't asking you for your opinion, I was asking GNU.org for their
> > > third party opinion and only CC'd the mailing lists to let them know what is
> > > up. I'm not sure how that was not clear to you given that I CC'd the mailing
> > > lists and sent the message TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > -jon
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://scarab.tigris.org/ | http://noodle.tigris.org/
> > > http://java.apache.org/ | http://java.apache.org/turbine/
> > > http://www.working-dogs.com/ | http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
> > > http://www.collab.net/ | http://www.sourcexchange.com/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Search: <http://www.mail-archive.com/turbine%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
