OpenBSD rejects new Apache license

merlyn on 2004-02-20T14:30:16

Apparently, Theo is upset with the new Apache license. I haven't investigated it, but it might mean that the OpenBSD distro will fork a copy of Apache. Interesting.

update: I found a live archive of the thread. Still not very clear about the issues.

IANAL-retentive

rafael on 2004-02-20T14:56:22

This is quite a serious issue (especially considering that the licence for Perl 6 / Parrot is yet to be definitively clarified). I haven't read yet a clear summary of what are the problems with the Apache 2 license -- I know it's OSS-approved, and GPL-incompatible, and not much more.

Re:IANAL-retentive

merlyn on 2004-02-20T15:42:14
Recalling the whole "ipf" vs "pf" fiasco (which actually resulted in the really cool "pf" being created), I suspect the argument is with these two paragraphs:
* 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must * not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this * software without prior written permission. For written * permission, please contact apache@apache.org. * * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", * nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written * permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
If this is like the "ipf" incident, the problem may be that Theo wants OpenBSD to be able to create more secure "derived" products without a lot of fuss. And having to go back to the ASF for every little security patch approval might be prohibitive.
Of course, the objection might be something entirely different. Just a guess.

Re:IANAL-retentive

rafael on 2004-02-20T17:20:17
I was under the impression was with the patent clause; which I quote:
"If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
I also wonder what are the license compatibility issues (notably for mod_perl 2.)
Re:IANAL-retentive

Buck on 2004-02-20T19:52:45

IIRC, the "ipf" incident hinged on whether or not its license gave one permission to modify the source and redistribute a derivative work. Darren Reed said it didn't. Theo pulled "ipf" from OpenBSD-CURRENT, and the rest is history (the less than cordial exchanges between the two notwithstanding).

Interestingly, the aforementioned paragraphs you cited look like the opposite of the infamous "advertising clause". Be that as it may, I guess Theo et al could stick with the version of Apache before the license change took effect. I believe that's what they're going to do with respect to XFree86.