License policy and Apache

Hi, 

below is an excerpt from the #kdelounge discussion. The result is that 

a) we suggest to add the Apache v2 license to the accepted licenses in KDE
b) we make it clear that our main criterium is that we want code to be licensed in a way that it can be reused in frameworks. 
c) we could potentially differentiate between licenses we accept, and licenses we endorse. 

a) is the question at hand, the others are follow-up discussions. Important quote from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html:

"Apache License, Version 2.0 (#apache2)
This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL.

Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in the that GPL version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programs over other lax permissive licenses."

With that in mind, there is no reason not to accept Apache if we accept BSD. What do you guys think?

All the best,

Mirko.

PS: The chat:

[09:07:45] <sandsmark> would it be problematic to license a KDE application under the Apache license?
...
[09:13:14] <miroslav> sandsmark: It should be legally possible, only our own standards say we require GPL/copyleft, IIRC.
[09:13:52] <sandsmark> miroslav: well, Apache is pretty much the only license not listed
[09:13:58] <sandsmark> BSD et al are on the page of acceptable licenses
[09:14:26] <ervin> only for historical reasons afaik (some of the early code was bsd)
[09:14:51] <sandsmark> ah, ok
[09:15:25] <sandsmark> the author of Mangonel preferred the Apache license, but he was willing to use the BSD license if that was better for KDE
[09:15:59] <miroslav> If we accept BSD, we should accept Apache as well. 
[09:16:24] <sandsmark> yup
[09:16:34] <sandsmark> but it might be best to standardize on as few licenses as possible
[09:16:48] <ervin> sandsmark: agreed
[09:16:55] <miroslav> Generally, for applications (not libraries), we should accept any FSF-approved Free Software license, IMO.
[09:17:01] <sandsmark> yup
[09:17:28] <miroslav> I am not quite sure what standardizing on licenses for apps gains us. I understand the benefit for frameworks.
[09:17:40] <ervin> miroslav: well there's always the argument of code moving from apps down to libs
[09:17:40] <sandsmark> miroslav: less clutter
[09:17:48] <sandsmark> as well as moving code, yes
[09:17:50] <ervin> it adds more hassle to relicense then
[09:18:05] <miroslav> Not a problem with either BSD or Apache, AFAIK.
[09:18:17] <sandsmark> well, not legally, but it might add confusion
[09:18:26] <ervin> sure for BSD, I'm not sure for apache
[09:18:34] <miroslav> But that is a good argument - "we accept any license that allows for code reuse in frameworks".
[09:18:38] -*- ervin doesn't remember the details of that one
[09:18:52] <sandsmark> miroslav: yup, that sounds like a good standard
[09:19:09] <miroslav> Where is the "official" list of licenses for KDE?
[09:19:38] <ervin> miroslav: http://techbase.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
[09:19:46] <miroslav> Cool, thx.
[09:20:40] <ervin> personally I'd rather see this list shrink more than grow :)
[09:20:58] <miroslav> For frameworks, yes.
[09:21:07] <miroslav> For apps, it discourages contributions IMO.
[09:21:27] <sandsmark> well, what's the difference between the X11/MIT/BSD licenses?
[09:21:28] <ervin> if you ignore the "code moving down the stack" argument
[09:21:59] <miroslav> I use this for reference: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
[09:22:15] <miroslav> There isn't much, but contributors may have code bases under certain licenses.
[09:22:25] <miroslav> When they start contributing to KDE.
[09:22:28] <sandsmark> well, we could have two lists; one of licenses which we accept, and one which we endorse
[09:22:52] <miroslav> And put the big red "We +1 all licenses that allow reuse in frameworks" on top.
[09:22:58] <sandsmark> hmm, isn't the MIT license just a BSD license with advertisting clause? how can we accept that? :p
[09:23:17] <ervin> hm, apache license incompatible with gpl2
[09:23:36] <miroslav> "Apache License, Version 2.0 (#apache2)
[09:23:36] <miroslav> This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GNU GPL.
[09:23:36] <miroslav> Please note that this license is not compatible with GPL version 2, because it has some requirements that are not in the that GPL version. These include certain patent termination and indemnification provisions. The patent termination provision is a good thing, which is why we recommend the Apache 2.0 license for substantial programs over other lax permissive licenses.
[09:23:37] <miroslav> "
[09:23:40] <miroslav> So hey.
[09:23:57] <sandsmark> «the name of the author not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, written prior permission.»
[09:24:10] <ervin> you see that's why I'd rather see the list small, it opens the door to such incompatibilities and inconsistencies
[09:24:53] <ervin> hm, that said you need at least a GPL->LGPL relicense for app code moving down anyway
[09:25:30] <ervin> so yeah, we likely need to shrink this list even more for frameworks, but we could be more relaxed on apps
[09:25:46] <ervin> miroslav: you convinced me
-- 
Mirko Boehm | [email protected] | KDE e.V.
FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany
Qt Certified Specialist

_______________________________________________
Kde-licensing mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-licensing