On 08/16/2012 11:52 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
FWIW, to be historically accurate, this would be "NPL 1.0-style
indemnification clauses." It's still in MPL 2.0, if I correctly
understand the part you find objectionable.
Yes, MPL 2.0 section 4. I haven't really thought about it (since
there's been no need to do so) but I believe it may be a bit broader
than Apache License 2.0 section 9. I seem to remember Roy Fielding
saying he modeled the provision on the one in MPL 1.1.
I wouldn't say I find it objectionable. Rather, it seemed clear to me
in 2006 when I first raised the issue and it still seems clear to me
today that, at least if assumed to be fully effective, the Apache
clause ought to be seen as a GPLv2-incompatible "further restriction".
In fact, this was based in part on FSF interpretive tradition, as I
recall, since there was some other free software license where the FSF
had at least hinted that upstream indemnification clauses were
problematic. The FSF seems to hold to the line today that the Apache
License 2.0 is GPLv2-incompatible but GPLv3-compatible.
I don't find it non-objectionable or useful enough that I think there
should be something like it in copyleft-next. It's like an advertising
credit requirement; I kind of understand why some licenses used to
have those. As with some of the elaborate GPLv3-derived provisions
I've deleted, my view is that it doesn't address any real-world
problem. I'd recommend to the ASF to delete section 9 from Apache
License 3.0, if there ever is one.
This year the Apache License provision in question caused some concern
among some in US federal government circles. See David Wheeler's take: