On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:36:40AM -0800, Rob Bos wrote: > > BTW: Someone of the people who fear legal risks should remove the apache > > packages from the archives - distributing a package built from > > modified sources violates the copyright... > > I've been reading /usr/share/doc/copyright, and this might be a good point, > though phrased somewhat trollishly - provision 4 and 5. > > <snip> > * 4. The names "Apache Server" and "Apache Group" must not be used to > * endorse or promote products derived from this software without > * prior written permission. For written permission, please contact > * apache@apache.org. > * > * 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. > </snip> > > Since the package is called "apache", debian is using the apache name to > "endorse or promote products derived from this software" and since the > package is modified (several .info files, a few other miscellaneous things) > that may count as a "derivative". I've raised the issue here before, and I, along with others, was involved in an off-list 100-mail discussion with upstream about it. We're violating it, but as long as we don't do anything too radical with it, and feed all our changes back to them, they'll turn a blind eye. -d -- Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net> <Overfiend> we're calling 2.2 POTATO??
Attachment:
pgpvVpJ2kYxR2.pgp
Description: PGP signature