Re: Look at the copyright before changing upstream sources
On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 02:06:18PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2001 at 12:22:44PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > apache (the original) is currently in violation of this:
> > daniel@piro:~/kde3/kdelibs% cat /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
> > [...]
> > * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache"
> > * nor may "Apache" appear in their names without prior written
> > * permission of the Apache Group.
> > [...]
>
> There was a long thread in debian-legal about this (sorry, I don't
> remember when), but nothing came of it.
>
> I got the impression that the Apache Group didn't intend the clause
> to be this strong, but on the other hand they haven't changed it yet
> either. And our Apache diffs are really huge so maybe we'd run afoul
> of even a weaker clause. (What's up with those diffs, anyway?)
I, and other people, have had a very long off-list discussion about the
new proposed license for apache2, and by the sounds of it, they don't
want any major modifications made, tho they said they'd be OK with it if
a) nothing major was done and b) what was done was contributed to
dev@httpd.apache.org. (Which I have done for apache2). The discussion
was between basically every major distributor of apache/apache2, and ASF
upstream.
The thread petered out with no conclusion, looks like they're going to
go ahead with the new license, which is basically just a clarification
of the old.
--
Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net>
<Omnic> synx: good point, I wouldnt want to fondle Overfiend's man breasts
Reply to: