Re: apache non-free?
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 02:00:36PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 03:11:51PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 11:36:40AM -0800, Rob Bos wrote:
> > > * 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.
> >
> > That's no different than "Debian". You cannot endorse a product using a
> > trademark without permission. That doesn't make the software non-free.
> >
> > Likewise, if someone derived a distribution from Debian, and called it
> > "Debian 5.0", they would be breaking some laws concerning our rights
> > over the mark "Debian".
>
> But we do make a derivative of Apache and call it apache. I don't know if
> capitalization makes any difference here, but if it doesn't then it seems to
> me that we are in violation of Apache's license.
Come on, it's not a "derivative", it's a patched version. A derivative
is if you use portions of it to create a new version, or turn it into a
"different product" (e.g. fork it).
Adding some patches is not a derivative.
--
.----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----.
/ Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: