Re: apache non-free?
Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
> Yup. I personally feel that if the Apache group doesn't interpret their
> license in a non-free way -- and doesn't interpret it in a free way
> *only* for Debian -- that there isn't a problem.
The issue of naming isn't about freeness; free software can contain a
restriction on what you call the software. (The classic example is
TeX.) So the apache restriction on naming does not impinge whether it
is free or not. Apache is therefore free.
Now, it would seem that perhaps we aren't allowed to call our modified
version "apache". If that were true, we could get a special
permission from Apache to call our version "apache", and it still
wouldn't run afoul of the DFSG, because naming of the program is not
one of the rights part of the free-software mix.
However, the fact that Apache seems content with the situation at
present gives strong evidence that, in fact, they are happy with it.
If this were something that affected the freeness of the program, we
might worry, but since it's a peripheral issue, we don't have to
If at some point in the future Apache says "hey, stop calling this
Apache", we can just change the name and move on.
This is very different from pine, for which the disputed question is a
thing that does impact freeness: the right to distribute modified
versions *at all*, under whatever name.