Glenn Maynard wrote: > 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.
It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it. For instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work, has "apache" in its name. Furthermore, they've stated that they don't intend to enforce it strictly, and it's not present in the new license. I certainly wouldn't accept this clause in a license without additional assurances from the copyright holder. We said as much to X-Oz. >> > 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. They normally appear in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright, in Debian. :-) Does that make a difference? I think this is a "loose" clause. > > (I only realized recently how horrible this license is.) > -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
