Further, since this seems a reasonable change, why not present it to
Apache as a friendly amendment and see if they want to make it into an
Apache 2.1 license? I mean, if it's good for Disney, why wouldn't it be
good for everyone else?
-russ
On 2/6/21 8:29 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
You probably want to explain the rationale for your changes in the
language, which in redline would look like this:
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor and
its affiliates, except as required for reasonable and customary use in
describing the origin of the Work to comply with Section 4(c) of the
License and to reproduce reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
*From:*License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org>
*On Behalf Of *Langley, Stuart
*Sent:* Saturday, February 6, 2021 3:48 PM
*To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
*Subject:* [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
Hello all, this is my first attempt at posting something new so we’ll
see how it goes.
Disney has been using a modified Apache license to release software.
We have not yet sought OSI recognition of this modification. I’ve
been hesitant to present this for consideration because the
modifications are so minor. The concern is that the Apache 2.0 is too
ambiguous for our taste about trademark rights. The modified language is:
*Amending Apache license language & file headers. New text: Copyright
20XX <INSERT BUSINESS ENTITY>Licensed under the Apache License,
Version 2.0 (the "Apache License")with the following modification; you
may not use this file except incompliance with the Apache License and
the following modification to it: *
*Section 6. Trademarks. is deleted and replaced with:6. Trademarks.
This License does not grant permission to use the tradenames,
trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor and its
affiliates, except as required to comply with Section 4(c) of the
License and to reproduce the content of the NOTICE file. You may
obtain a copy of the Apache License
athttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0Unless required by
applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under
the Apache License with the above modification is distributed on
an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANYKIND,
either express or implied. See the Apache License for the specific
language governing permissions and limitations under the Apache License.*
I would appreciate your thoughts. The distinction about trademarks is
important to us, and should be to others who are concerned about
losing control of their trademarks to “reasonable and customary” use
allowed by Apache 2.0. Would a license like this be a valuable enough
distinction from Apache 2.0 to merit a separate license?
Stuart T. Langley
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
