Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxcoder | Hacker News Reader

GPLv3 has a framework for exceptions built-in. Apache 2.0 supposes no exceptions. The question is why FSF/SFLC thought it insufficient to simply enumerate the exceptions alongside the license.

View on HN

The exceptions provide gpl2 compatibility, gplv3 is already compatible with Apache 2. As for why nobody did this before, i suspect the fsf wanted folks to move to gplv3, and neither side really wanted to do something like this. There are disadvantages to doing it like this, but it was felt this was the best we could really do.

Remember also that both those organizations have very different goals.

ASLv2 is compatible with GPLv3 (works under ASLv2 can be inorporated into GPLv3), but not vice versa. This is because GPL has (arguably useful) restrictions which ASL does not. A common goal of ASLv2 and GPLv3 is the restriction on patents, which makes them both incompatible with GPLv2. This is an important difference which makes GPLv3 a superior freedom-preserving license to v2, and the resulting incompatibility is not a matter of interpretation - you can't downgrade licenses. It is unfortunate that Linux was not licensed as GPLv2 or later which is, alongside Linus' support for TiVoization(DrM) and the corporate lawyers' spreading of FUD, the reason why we're still forced to discuss GPLv2.

    GPLv3 has a framework for exceptions built-in

Yes Section 7. But GPLv2 (Linux Kernel) doesn't.

My core point is adding exceptions to FOSS compiler licenses is slightly required to avoid technical legal ambiguity with their output.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com