A Promise Without a Remedy: The Supposed Incompatibility of the GPL v2 and Apache v2 Licenses

13

A Promise Without a Remedy: The Supposed Incompatibility of the GPL v2 and Apache v2 Licenses ☶ pdf law digitalcommons.law.scu.edu
via robn 7 months ago | caches
Archive.org Archive.today Ghostarchive
| 5 comments

5

Abstract:

License “incompatibility” in free and open source software licensing means that, when two differently licensed pieces of software are combined, one cannot comply with both licenses at the same time. It is commonly accepted that the GNU General Public License version 2 is incompatible with the Apache License, version 2 because certain provisions of the Apache License would be considered “further restrictions” not permitted by the GPLv2. However, this article will explain why there is no legally cognizable claim for combining the two, either under a copyright infringement theory or a breach of contract theory.

1. 6
  
  kemitchell 7 months ago
  
  Pam is a very competent lawyer with lots of experience in free and open licensing. Whenever I can, I refer my free-open clients with trademark needs to her and her small team.
2. 5
  
  david_chisnall 7 months ago
  
  When an explanation starts with a quote from the non-normative section of the GPL, which contains a pedagogical oversimplification of the terms of the GPL and starts to use that as the basis for the argument, I start to get nervous.
  
  Footnote 11 is misleading. Clause 7 of GPLv2 is quite explicit about patents. It is not a patent grant, it is a notice that you must independently comply with patents. This is the clause that can be triggered in the GPL and which makes Apache 2 incompatible.
  
  I stopped reading from there because it seems to be arguing against something that is unrelated to the argument that lawyers that I respect have made that GPLv2 and Apache 2 are incompatible.
  1. 5
    
    mjec 7 months ago
    
    I don’t think the article contends that the licenses are not incompatible, I think it’s saying that the incompatibility is insignificant:
    
    However, as will be shown, no one would have a legal claim for wrongdoing if GPLv2-licensed and Apache-licensed software are combined. Combining the software may mean that there is an unmet contractual promise not to include “further restrictions,” but there is no cognizable legal wrong for failing to keep that promise.
    
    (at 308)
    1. 2
      
      robn 7 months ago
      
      That’s how I read this (no legal training, just three decades in a comfy armchair). The gist seems to be that based on various precedents, courts are unlikely to find that anyone would actually harmed or restricted in any meaningful way.
      
      And sure, that’s an interpretation, but it seems that for situations about mixing open source licenses, interpretation is all we have?
      
      (this is interesting to me as a OpenZFS-on-Linux developer, which has had very similar licensing … complications, and also as a non-US/EU citizen, where I have to try to assess things against local laws as well. Alternative interpretations are very interesting!)
      1. 3
        
        recursion 7 months ago
        
        Thank you for this attitude, which enables me to benefit from your work on ZFS every day. I appreciate you!