On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > 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.
libssl-dev/copyright: * nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written apache-utils/copyright: nor may "mod_ssl" appear in their names without prior php4/copyright: may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission subversion/copyright:nor may "Tigris" appear in their names without prior written and a particularly evil one, sudo/copyright: may "Sudo" appear in their names without specific prior written > >> > 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. > > > > /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 think that's a reasonable interpretation. For some reason, I was interpreting "the software itself" as "the binary itself"; I suppose the endlessly repeated arguments about "software" finally managed to confuse me. Are there any licenses requiring an acknowledgement in the documentation which /usr/share/doc/*/copyright doesn't satisfy, which we should examine? If not, "N. Acknowledgements in documentation" can probably be removed. -- Glenn Maynard
