As seen in the proposed license, section 7(b),
You must retain, in the source code of any Derivative Work that You distribute, all copyright, patent, or trademark notices from the source code of the Work, excluding those notices that only pertain to portions of the Work that have been excluded from the Derivative Work. If the Work includes a "NOTICE" file as part of its source code distribution, the Derivative Work must include a readable copy of the notices contained within that NOTICE file....
This is still a restriction that the GPL does not impose, just like the old annoying advertising clause, and therefore makes it GPL incompatible, just like the current Apache license.
I suppose by "other widely-used open source [sic] licenses", they don't mean the most widely used Free software license.
Furthermore, I am not sure whether this is a problem, but the proposal says you should claim "you may not use this file except in compliance with the License", whereas the GPL says "You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it." I believe the rationale behind this is that you can't legally restrict use (i.e. running the program) without click-wrapping or the like.
S11
DotGNU || Free Software in Education group
[ Reply to This ]
|