Normally lurk, but since the license name-calling has started already ...
The argument that Apache 2.0 is not a free license seems odd to me as well.
There are many other arguments (e.g. need contributor sign-off, want
compatibility with GPLv2, stuff like that) that seem like they would make some
degree of sense to my non-lawyer brain, but the argument that Apache 2.0 is not
a free license strikes me as an ambiguous (and possibly visceral) one. While I
would never argue against one's right to believe in such things, I would note
that moving forward with a productive discourse would likely require some
degree of additional detail :)
I'll further note that, as far as I remember, LLVM was looking at moving from
something BSD-like over to Apache 2 for quite some time - I believe there was
some pretty lively conversation happening there about pros / cons which may be
a useful reference for this conversation (in the event no one has seen it
already) [1].
Cheers,
Gilbert Clark
[1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-October/091536.html
________________________________
From: nanomsg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <nanomsg-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Garrett D'Amore <garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:28:48 PM
To: nanomsg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [nanomsg] Re: nng licensing (apache 2.0 vs. mit)
The one set of “restrictions” that I can see that some might find objectionable
is the requirement that modifications be clearly marked as such, and that the
license text be included in any redistributions. (Even binary redistributions;
there is no requirement for source code distribution — as noted this is *not* a
copyleft license.)
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:25 PM Cody Piersall
<cody.piersall@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cody.piersall@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Marc Balmer <marc@xxxxxxx<mailto:marc@xxxxxxx>>
wrote:
Am 03.10.2017 um 22:15 schrieb Cody Piersall
<cody.piersall@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cody.piersall@xxxxxxxxx>>:
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Marc Balmer
<marc@xxxxxxx<mailto:marc@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
Am 03.10.2017 um 22:07 schrieb Garrett D'Amore
<garrett@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:garrett@xxxxxxxxxx>>:
May I inquire as to why this is a barrier? What is the actual nature of
the
problem that the Apache 2.0 license creates for you?
Sure. MIT is a free license, whereas Apache 2 is not.
Could you be more specific? According to Wikipedia it's still
compatible with GPLv3, and my understanding up to right now has been
that it is a generally respectable open source license.
Compatible witl GPLv3, maybe. But we are talking about the MIT license here.
And no, GPLv3 is not a respectable open source license, it is a computer
virus.
