Re: ASL2 definitely not compatible with GPL3, new draft

* Matthew Toseland <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]> [2007-05-18 18:34:34]:

> http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/brussels-rms-transcript.en.html
> 
> RMS on GPL3 draft 3 (significant changes from draft 2).
> 
> "So we are compatible with that clause in the Apache licence but a few months 
> ago we noticed that there was another clause in the Apache licence requiring 
> indemnity in certain cases, and there's no way we can be compatible with 
> that. So we're not going to achieve that goal of making GPL version three 
> compatible with the existing Apache licence. I regret that."
> 
> Which means we can't comply 100% with the law while including Apache Commons 
> code in Freenet. :| Except maybe by adding an exception to the license, which 
> requires permission of all copyright holders, and that's a *MAJOR* PITA.
> 
> More on GPL3 draft 3:
> http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/gplv3.en.html
> Rationale for changes from draft 2:
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/rationale


Draft 4 is ASL compatible :)
http://apache.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/01/055243

NextGen$

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGZUJHU/Z/dHFfxtcRAob/AKCx2eojqzgMG2xL+iX8T2QeZ4WbWwCdGHX6
KvamF47ZJuC4ymwkNg+EQQQ=
=fAnB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----