Allison captures the alleged GPL/Apache incompatibility really well, and makes an implicit plea for the FSF to stop pretending the two are incompatible. She writes, trying to decipher the FSF's apparent attempts to strain at the Apache gnat (and swallow the open source camel in the process),Is the FSF saying that when a downstream company takes on the legal burden to indemnify a piece of GPL software, they expec Allison captures the alleged GPL/Apache incompatibility really well, and makes an implicit plea for the FSF to stop pretending the two are incompatible. She writes, trying to decipher the FSF’s apparent attempts to strain at the Apache gnat (and swallow the open source camel in the process),Is the FSF saying that when a downstream company takes on the legal burden to indemnify a piece of GPL software, they expect the developers to also take on that legal burden? Or, in the case where the FSF is the copyright holder, that they intend to take the legal burden of indemnification themselves? Somehow that seems unlikely, but they claim that the GPLv3 differs from the Apache License on exactly this point.The FSF committed to Apache compatibility with GPLv3 early into the drafting process. There is no compelling reason not to finish what the FSF started. (Having said that, I don’t believe the two are incompatible. At all.) Open Source