Re: The new apache license

[gabe f <gabe_1@comcast.net>]

Nick Holland wrote:
[...]
>>4.  Some other specific clause is unacceptable, such as clause 3 (patent
>>licensing).
> 
> 
> The "BSD acceptable" patent clause would be something like "we don't
> give a rat's butt about your patents or our patents or that guy over
> there's patents one way or another".  Anything else is a restriction
> on usage of the code, therefore, unacceptable.
> 
> [has "rat's butt" ever been used in a legal document before?]
> 
> They are taking stuff away here.
> We don't like that.
> What's so hard to understand about this?
> 

is it easy to understand, or hard? make up your mind.

> 
> you forgot this major point:
> 5) The new license is new and untried and unknown.
> The BSD license is understood.
> The GPL license is (more or less) understood.
> This thing comes out of left field, and it means what?  WHO KNOWS? 

you don't have to be a lawyer to understand contracts, but you do
have to be patient, diligent, able to do some logic operations
and substitute variables (eg. terms like "the Work"). If that's not
you, then defer.

> Might there be some small phrase missing or present, subject to
> (mis/re/)interpretation?  

That _is_ what lawyers and judges and legislators are for. And the
precious BSD license is not immune from that.

> Could this lead to another SCO issue a few
> years down the road?  
> 

Are you refering to the Apache patent section? They give "perpetual"
and unrestricted patent license -- that is specifically stating the
opposite of what you are worried about. The second sentance in that
sentance is a sanction on those who sue them -- it doesn't limit
anyone's litigation rights (which you couldn't do, anyway -- whoever
stated that in another post). Reread that section a few times, it
might even be in response to the SCO litigation -- specifically
it would mean that a "future SCO" would not be allowed to use Apache
in their distribution as soon as they said Apache had the "future
SCO"'s code in it.

> People who opt to "go it alone" and write their own license typically
> screw up.
> 
> People who hire lawyers forget one key fact: lawyers are in business
> to keep things ambigious.  

Please. And open source programmers are in the business of hacking
into Corporate computer systems.

 >
[...]
> 
> We want OpenBSD to be usable.  For anything.  Anywhere.  By anyone. 
> What part of this is hard to understand?
> 

Well, the only type of difference the new license would have made is
that
Microsoft would have had to cite in their copyright section (you know,
the part of a software install where you have to "agree" to the
terms, not a logo copyright for a CD cover) that they have
incorporated BSD code.

> Hoping a license doesn't bite you in the butt is like hoping a coding
> error doesn't bite you in the butt.  That's not what we are about
> here.
> 

agreed. don't hope, don't say "who knows?" -- find out for sure.

> 
> It is probably worth pointing out: they have the right to do with
> _their code_ what they wish.  We have the right to be pissed off about
> it, refuse to use it, and/or fork it, but no right to demand they fit
> our wishes.  But we can express our concerns and desires, and let them
> know what the consequences of their actions will be.
> 
> Nick.

yay! agreed.