Da link
The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license, but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD.
Questa motivazione menziona "ulteriori restrizioni" ma non dice quali sono. Quali sono stati i motivi per dichiarare la licenza Apache 2.0 incompatibile con la politica di OpenBSD?
Alcune critiche che ho trovato sulla mailing list :
From: Henning Brauer (lists-openbsdbsws.de)
Date: Thu Feb 19 2004 - 02:58:21 CSTthe point is that more and more free software is slowly getting unfree, more restrictive, etc, and that is not something we should just passively watch. please have a look at the new apache license. it is not really parsable without consulting a lawyer, and as this license seems to go into the contract law land, the lawyers answer migth very well be a differing depending on in which country you are.
From: Steve (steveszmidt.org)
Date: Mon Jun 07 2004 - 13:59:03 CDTYes indeed. Reading the Apache 2.0 license, it demands notices to be placed in any modified versions that you distribute. BAAD!
It even have the gall to demand that if you "prepare Derivative Works", "to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files". Including original copyright notices and stuff.
This is truly evil.
Besides being so nasty it's a really easy to read license for any layman. Guess they figured that if anyone can read and understand it they will stay away from Apache.
To cap it off, unless you explicitly state otherwise, any contribution intentionally submitted, will follow the same license! So now others in their turn also have to include notices and so on. This is a truly unfriendly license...
From: Theo de Raadt (deraadtcvs.openbsd.org)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004No sorry, the Patent clause seems to give extra rights: the right not to be sued by a contributor for using their code, so in that sense the extra length does seem to make the licence more free.
È divertente; Non riesco a vedere nessuna di queste cose coperta da copyright legge. Come forse saprai, la legge sul copyright ti consente solo di conservare o concedere
via i diritti coperti dalla legge sul copyright. E poiché questo è giusto
non discusso nella legge sul copyright, buon dio, non deve essere un valido termine di copyright.There has been a load of knee-jerk nonsense from people who clearly can't (or don't want to) read, asserting that this removes users rights to sue. It doesn't, it merely removes rights if they sue that they would never have had under a BSD licence in the first place.
Balony.
What bothers me is a bunch of OpenBSD folks going over to Apache licensing lists making assertions that clauses like the patent clause make the license inherently less free based on poor analysis.
Non è gratuito. Non esiste un "diritto a non essere citato in giudizio".
Leggi altre domande sui tag history licensing apache-license bsd