On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 23:07, T. Ribbrock wrote: > > > > as Apache's licence has been changed for the worse as well. > > > With respect to GPL compatibility Apache's license hasn't changed. It > > never has been GPL compatible. > > The problem is that the old licence was reasonably understandable, > whereas the new licence can only be understood with the help of a > lawyer. In my opinion, this is a clear change for the worse. The problem I see is even worse. Now I'm not a lawyer - but it looks like you have a patented technology, Apache uses your patented tech, and you sue Apache.org - then you are no longer allowed to use Apache. In other words - buy using Apache, you agree that we may use any technology you have patented free of charge. That's not free. Thus - if say they started using something from Red Hat's patent portfolio and Red Hat took them to court over it - Red Hat would not be allowed to use Apache. I'm not in favor of patent licenses - but that is definitely not free. I see Apache's market share dropping soon, and something (maybe bases on thttpd?) replacing it. Then again - I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I don't understand their license. I can, however, understand the bsd license, the gpl license, the perl artistic license, etc.
