Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> I think that clause 1, 2 and 3 are not a problem, but you might have to
> change clause 4 and 5 into a request instead of a demand (which is a added
> restriction if you want sidtribute a derived work that also uses code that
> falls under the GPL). So you might want to say:
> 4. Please don't use the names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation"
> to endorse or promote products derived from this
> software without prior written permission. For written
> permission, please contact email@example.com.
> 5. If you make products derived from this software please don't call
> them "Apache", or use "Apache" in their name, without prior written
> permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
> Maybe just changing the must in a should in the original text would be
> enough, but english isn't my native language. If you want I can contact
> the FSF and discuss it with them. I believe Richard Stallman will come to
> the LSM next month and I could try to discuss it with him then.
That's why both clauses contain the word "please", and don't say the word
"must". Trademark protection is beyond the scope of a copyright license,
and protection of the Apache name is very important to us - we'd be pretty
pissed by someone releasing a product called "ApachePro", "Apache++", etc,
even if it was open source. Yet we do allow it to be used from time to
time, basically by those who are solid contributors to the code base.
I sent this to Stallman before the ASF agreed to adopt it, and while he
didn't explicitly give it his blessing, he did seem to find it far less
objectionable. I've not queried him for an official opinion.