Martin Olsson wrote: > Hi, > > Could someone clarify the difference between GPL+Exception and ASF?
GPL+Exception is a software license, the ASF is an organisation. :) > I'm interested both in the general differences but also specifically: > - Why do you guys prefer GPL+Exception over ASLv2 ? The former is GPL-compatible, meaning it can be used directly with GPLd software to create new works. The latter is not, due to a patent-retailiation clause, that's formulated in a way that adds restrictions to GPL. See [1] for details; it essentially boils down to a) the GPL requiring you to stop distribution when someone successfully obtains a court decision against you wrt software patents (i.e. they first have to drag you to court and win there with their claims), b) while the ASL2 revokes your right to use the patent-encumbered code as soon as you start a patent litigation (including using patent counterclaims to yourself in court), and c) the GPL not allowing further restrictions The whole ASL2 attampt to retaliate on patents is a bit weird, as the ASF does not have *any* patents it could possibly deny the license to use in retaliation against a patent attack, anyway. Since the ASF is championing the cause of patent-unencumbered protocols (see Sender-Id discussions), for example, it would be pretty weird if the ASF suddendly started to distribute patent-encumbered implementations of the same protocols themselves. Larry Rosen called the ASL2 "toothless" in that respect.[2] > - Why do the Apache guys prefer ASLv2 over GPL+Exception ? Becuse they understand their own license better than a license from the FSF, I guess. For example, I don't necessarily understand all aspects of the ASL2, and the lack of a comprehensive, exhaustive FAQ on the ASL2 is not helpful there. I assume that the Apache guys have a similar feeling of not understanding all the implications of the GPL+LE, so they'd prefer a license that they understand. Sticking with the devil one knows is pretty normal human behavior. Or GNU/Linux would completely rule the desktop. :) > (please tell me that there is some tangible > difference here, and not just some NIH crap :D) In real life, for a runtime wanting to ship a jar with class libraries, the licenses have pretty much equivalent effect: link as much as you want to the class library jar file without having to license your runtime (or code running on top of it) under the license of the class libraries. But, for developers, GPL+LE has one clear benefit over ASL2: it is GPL-compatible. Given that many runtimes using GNU Classpath are licensed under the GPL (or GPL-compatible licenses), and many authors of GNU Classpath contribute to/use/work on GPL-licensed projects, that argument matters a lot: it allows for unencumbered future development. Licensing GNU Classpath under ASL2 would prohibit that, and cut a part of GNU Classpath developers and users from further development. I.e. it would be a pretty pointless thing to do. See XFree86 vs X.org fork for an example of why alienating your user base with pessimizing license changes is a bad thing to do. :) See also the excellent essay at [3] on why GPL-compatiblity matters. > Also, why did GNU go with GPL+Exception this time and not LGPL? The GPL+exception concept exists since the early 90s, and has been sucessfully used in libgcc since dinosaurs walked the earth and mainframes ate bugs. :) For several use cases, in particular in embedded systems, a license more permissive than the LGPL is advantageous. Rather than creating yet another license from scratch and contributing to the general license polution, the FSF chose to grant a specific exception to an existing license, GPL, to make it as permissive as necessary. The reason why GPL is chosen, is presumably because GPL is a bit clearer, as it does not go into the technical mess of how the linking/ creation of derived works is performed. On the 'GPL may be a bit clearer' part: Part of some deveopers' concerns regarding the LGPL was the application of the rather technical terms regarding object file linkage and header files and all that in the LGPL to name-lookup based use of such libraries, for example in the programs written in the Java programming language. That prompted the clarification of the effect of LGPL on programs written in the Java programming language in an article by David Turner on the FSF site.[4] cheers, dalibor topic [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html [2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200504.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] see also for example his take on the funny notion of copyrightable APIs at http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:3266:200104:fnebghjdoohkgejjfnbd [3] http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html [4] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl-java.html _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
