Nothing about the proposed changes seems OSI non-conformant (though from a
practical point of view I question their net value) but, since we're on
the subject of trademarks, the Apache Software Foundation has objected in
the past to folks using the phrase "modified Apache license" to describe
licenses that are sometimes much more substantial departures (and non-OSI
compliant) but still inherit the same degree of public trust.
https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license
https://www.zdnet.com/article/redis-labs-and-common-clause-attacked-where-it-hurts-with-open-source-code/
Looks like this might be a minor but still live issue for Disney:
https://github.com/PixarAnimationStudios/ruby-jss/issues/27
Not only is it important to avoid confusion in the market, it's important
to ensure that SPDX identifiers are correctly used so that automated tools
are able to audit software stacks for license conformance, and something
like "modified Apache license" may lead someone inadvertantly to add an
Apache SPDX identifier to the top.
Brian
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021, Russell Nelson wrote:
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
