Hacker News Reader

GPLv3 is for a lot of companies too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, etc. Though many were never fond of the copy-left nature of GPLv2(and 1), they allowed it. GPLv3 upped the bar, to a degree that many lawyers won't sign off on its use.

Apache 2.0 is the standard for almost every company I've dealt with, with MIT and BSD 3 clause being accepted as well. But Apache 2 seems to make most lawyers happy.

View on HN

You say the GPLv3 is too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, but the Apache 2.0 is okay? The Apache 2.0 license requires a patent grant. How do they differ in the patent grant?

I'd speculate that for many companies the GPLv3 is too strong in its copy-left stance, by disallowing Tivoization.

GPLv3 patent text was created by literally copying the part from the Apache 2.0 text, and then adding a paragraph to handle patent agreements such as the one between Novel and Microsoft.

The distinction between the two text is case of paten agreements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com