# Apache license and OpenBSD



## tessio (Oct 19, 2010)

Hello,
Is there somebody that can explain me why the OpenBSD people keep shipping Apache 1.x in the base system, instead of upgrading to Apache 2.x?
As far as I understand the Apache 2.0 license, it's non copyleft.. so anyone can re-license it anytime.. Am I wrong? 



(Non-English speaker here..)


----------



## Oko (Oct 19, 2010)

Yes, you are wrong! 



> The original Apache copyright is similar to the Berkeley copyright, except that it stipulates that products derived from the code may not have "Apache" in their name. The purpose of this clause is to avoid a situation in which another party releases a modified version of the code named in such a way to make users think that it is the "official" version. This is not an issue with OpenBSD because OpenBSD is a Compilation, and not a Derived Work. Source code published under version 2 of the Apache license cannot be included into OpenBSD. As a consequence, OpenBSD now maintains its own version of Apache based on version 1.3.29. The OpenBSD version includes many enhancements and bugfixes.


----------



## tessio (Oct 19, 2010)

> . Source code published under version 2 of the Apache license cannot be included into OpenBSD.




But they don't say exactly why it's incompatible.. 

Ps.: I was reading about software license and now I know that re-licensing is not possible.. so dis-considerate this part of my post:



> As far as I understand the Apache 2.0 license, it's non copyleft.. so anyone can re-license it anytime.. Am I wrong?


----------



## Oko (Oct 20, 2010)

I am not a lawyer but redistribution clause looks like a GPL virus crap to me. The issue of the Apache 2 license has been discussed up to the death at misc@openbsd. You can check the archives if you are curious. In any case Apache 2 is in port so if you need it you can use the latest and greatest version of Apache on OpenBSD.


----------



## Beastie (Oct 20, 2010)

> Apache License, Version 2.0
> 
> This is a free software license, compatible with version 3 of the GPL.


(source)

Some people may not like GPLv3...


----------



## mix_room (Oct 20, 2010)

Beastie said:
			
		

> Some people may not like GPLv3...



Apache is compatible with GPL v3, that does NOT mean that it is GPL v3.


----------



## tessio (Oct 22, 2010)

Solved? 



> I am not a lawyer but redistribution clause looks like a GPL virus crap to me.


What? Did you even read it? Apache 2.0 is a non copyleft license.. 



> Some people may not like GPLv3...


The BSD license is GPL compatible too.. Run to the hills! LOL!


----------



## tessio (Nov 5, 2010)

People in this forum are not into discussing licensing issues.. I think..


----------

