Apache license - BSD

This is a discussion on Apache license - BSD ; Dear people, in the comments to the release song of OpenBSD 3.6 ( http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#36 ) you write some nasty things about the Apache license: > But the years have changed them, and what they supply is now quite > non-free... ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Apache license

  1. Apache license

    Dear people,
    in the comments to the release song of OpenBSD 3.6
    (http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#36) you write some nasty things
    about the Apache license:

    > But the years have changed them, and what they supply is now quite
    > non-free... released under a license so entangled in legalese that we
    > have absolutely no doubt that there are encumbrances hidden within.
    > Legal terms protect. Who are they protecting? Not your freedom.


    Now I wanted to find out why you don't like this license. So I looked
    around in the web and found this: http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

    You can find the following text concerning Apache there:

    > The original Apache copyright is similar to the Berkeley copyright,
    > except that it stipulates that products derived from the code may not
    > have "Apache" in their name. The purpose of this clause is to avoid a
    > situation in which another party releases a modified version of the
    > code named in such a way to make users think that it is the "official"
    > version. This is not an issue with OpenBSD because OpenBSD is a
    > *Compilation*, and not a *Derived Work*. Source code published under
    > version 2 of the Apache license cannot be included into OpenBSD. As a
    > consequence, OpenBSD now maintains its own version of Apache based on
    > version 1.3.29. The OpenBSD version includes many enhancements and
    > bugfixes.


    This tells the following to me: You have no problems with Apache License
    1. But it doesn't explain me what your problem with Apache License 2 is.

    I'd be very interested what the reason for your dislike of this license is.

    Yours faithfully
    Wolfgang

  2. Re: Apache license

    On Sep 8, 3:57 am, Bananensandwich
    wrote:
    > Dear people,
    > in the comments to the release song of OpenBSD 3.6
    > (http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#36) you write some nasty things
    > about the Apache license:
    >
    > > But the years have changed them, and what they supply is now quite
    > > non-free... released under a license so entangled in legalese that we
    > > have absolutely no doubt that there are encumbrances hidden within.
    > > Legal terms protect. Who are they protecting? Not your freedom.

    >
    > Now I wanted to find out why you don't like this license. So I looked
    > around in the web and found this:http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
    >
    > You can find the following text concerning Apache there:
    >
    > > The original Apache copyright is similar to the Berkeley copyright,
    > > except that it stipulates that products derived from the code may not
    > > have "Apache" in their name. The purpose of this clause is to avoid a
    > > situation in which another party releases a modified version of the
    > > code named in such a way to make users think that it is the "official"
    > > version. This is not an issue with OpenBSD because OpenBSD is a
    > > *Compilation*, and not a *Derived Work*. Source code published under
    > > version 2 of the Apache license cannot be included into OpenBSD. As a
    > > consequence, OpenBSD now maintains its own version of Apache based on
    > > version 1.3.29. The OpenBSD version includes many enhancements and
    > > bugfixes.

    >
    > This tells the following to me: You have no problems with Apache License
    > 1. But it doesn't explain me what your problem with Apache License 2 is.
    >
    > I'd be very interested what the reason for your dislike of this license is.


    it has too many words in it.


  3. Re: Apache license

    tedu wrote:
    > On Sep 8, 3:57 am, Bananensandwich
    > wrote:
    >> Dear people,
    >> in the comments to the release song of OpenBSD 3.6
    >> (http://www.openbsd.org/lyrics.html#36) you write some nasty things
    >> about the Apache license:
    >>
    >> > But the years have changed them, and what they supply is now quite
    >> > non-free... released under a license so entangled in legalese that we
    >> > have absolutely no doubt that there are encumbrances hidden within.
    >> > Legal terms protect. Who are they protecting? Not your freedom.

    >>
    >> Now I wanted to find out why you don't like this license. So I looked
    >> around in the web and found this:http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
    >>
    >> You can find the following text concerning Apache there:
    >>
    >> > The original Apache copyright is similar to the Berkeley copyright,
    >> > except that it stipulates that products derived from the code may not
    >> > have "Apache" in their name. The purpose of this clause is to avoid a
    >> > situation in which another party releases a modified version of the
    >> > code named in such a way to make users think that it is the "official"
    >> > version. This is not an issue with OpenBSD because OpenBSD is a
    >> > *Compilation*, and not a *Derived Work*. Source code published under
    >> > version 2 of the Apache license cannot be included into OpenBSD. As a
    >> > consequence, OpenBSD now maintains its own version of Apache based on
    >> > version 1.3.29. The OpenBSD version includes many enhancements and
    >> > bugfixes.

    >>
    >> This tells the following to me: You have no problems with Apache License
    >> 1. But it doesn't explain me what your problem with Apache License 2 is.
    >>
    >> I'd be very interested what the reason for your dislike of this license is.

    >
    > it has too many words in it.
    >

    Not to mention...

    Good lord, this horse has been beaten to death. Check the misc@
    archives for the gory details. Please do not resurrect this tired old
    argument here.
    --
    clvrmnky

    Direct replies will be blacklisted. Replace "spamtrap" with my name to
    contact me directly.

+ Reply to Thread