Re: New Apache license compatible with GPL? (Was: [Talin@ACM.org: Suggestions for wording...?])
On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
> > 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.
But the The Apache Software License, Version 1.1, which can be found on
<http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt> does NOT contain the word please.
Just like the old license it currently says:
* 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must
* not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
* software without prior written permission. For written
* permission, please contact email@example.com.
* 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache",
* nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written
* permission of the Apache Software Foundation.
That was why I suggested to use the word please in a new version. Or is
there already a newer version of the Apache Software License that does
not use the word must?