Linux.com

Re:Free? Just like Apache 2 is NOT

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 15, 2005 09:57 AM
FSF is rather free at times in its definition of Free (as in licence) including this case as well as others with restrictive terms.



ASF isn't too sure itself about GPL compatibility:
"The result is a license that is supposed to be compatible with other open source licenses while remaining true to the original goals of the Apache Group and supportive of collaborative development across both nonprofit and commercial organizations. The Apache Software Foundation is still trying to determine if this version of the Apache License is compatible with the GPL." (Apache.org website)



As to the "market share" of "70%" do you think that every copy of Apache/Apache derivatives running is under ASF 2.x licencing? They are not and all of the figures are necessarily wafty anyway. There are no hard data to support your claim but I do know that there are lots of 1.3.x and derivatives out there on the previous simple and free-er licence.


Whenever masses of text are added to an existing licence it is NOT adding freedom. It always reduces it.

#

Return to Apache group takes a big step toward open source Java