As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly
deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for
the GPL at all.
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I'd like to append something like the following:
>
> The license may not place further constraints on the naming or
> labelling of the derivative work. This includes specifying the form of
> such notices, or the manner in which derivative works must be named.
/usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache",
nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written
permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
I think that this is something that shouldn't have been allowed, but has
since become extremely widespread, and it probably wouldn't be productive
to start rejecting it--it's a problem, but a relatively minor one.
> > N. Acknowledgements in documentation
>
> > The license for a free program may require that end-user
> > documentation which accompanies the program contains a short
> > acknowledgement that credits the author.
>
> That's horrible. This could mean that we have to include the blasted
> things in the release notes. Survey of licenses and a tighter
> restriction before we write this one in, please. I'm not sufficiently
> familiar with such clauses to be able to pull one out of the air.
/usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
"This product includes software developed by the
Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.
(I only realized recently how horrible this license is.)
--
Glenn Maynard
