On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Ted Dunning <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Danese Cooper <dan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It is true that the ASF and the FSF have historically been religiously >> incompatible on the subject of licensing combinatorics. As I usually >> explain to my clients, the worst case scenario for the FSF is that code >> become unfree (in the non-proprietary sense); the worst case scenario for >> the ASF is that code become unused (in the code reuse sense). Both points >> have their validity. >> > > Actually FSF explicitly says that ASL is compatible with GPL. The reverse > is, of course, not true if you want to preserve the ASL semantics and both > ASF and FSF agree on that.
A fun little fact that not a lot of zealots on both sides realize is the above plus the revers fact that FSF actually *recommends* ALv2 under certain conditions: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.en.html (see the Small Programs ;-) and Libraries paragraph). Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
