On 2/7/2021 3:09 PM, James wrote:
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:27 PM Langley, Stuart
wrote:
Thank you. The rationale is that in a company like ours (Disney in this case,
but others obviously would share this concern) trademarks are a fundamental
value of the company. We license marks very inten
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 5:16 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> VM (Vicky) Brasseur dixit:
>
> >> Can I suggest that you give your new license a name to clearly
> >> distinguish it from other licenses, particularly the ALv2?
> >
> > +1 to this suggestion…
>
> Before doing so, I’d consider the suggestion
VM (Vicky) Brasseur dixit:
>> Can I suggest that you give your new license a name to clearly
>> distinguish it from other licenses, particularly the ALv2?
>
> +1 to this suggestion…
Before doing so, I’d consider the suggestion of reaching out to
the ASF and asking whether they would take this for
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of Brian Behlendorf
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 1:56 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache Lic
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
l
> -Original Message-
> From: James [mailto:purplei...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 7, 2021 1:10 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Cc: mc...@lexpan.law; Langley, Stuart
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
>
>
>
Mark Thomas wrote on 7/2/21 03:27:
Hi Stuart,
Can I suggest that you give your new license a name to clearly
distinguish it from other licenses, particularly the ALv2?
+1 to this suggestion…
Downstream users of your open source products need to describe the
licenses of their dependencies and
Mark, that is our intention. If we presented it for approval it would be the
whole license with the change, and under a distinct name. I wanted to float
the suggestion here to get just the kind of feedback I'm getting.
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss [mailto:license-disc
On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:27 PM Langley, Stuart
wrote:
>
> Thank you. The rationale is that in a company like ours (Disney in this
> case, but others obviously would share this concern) trademarks are a
> fundamental value of the company. We license marks very intentionally and
> are not comfo
e.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
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
:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org]
> On Behalf Of McCoy Smith
> Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 6:30 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
>
>
>
> You probably want to explain the rationale for you
License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org] On
Behalf Of McCoy Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 6:30 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License
You probably want to explain the rationale for your changes in the language,
w
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
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 r
14 matches
Mail list logo
