Re: VOCAL (Vovidia Communications License)
Josh Triplett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>
>>>> * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
>>>> * may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written
>>>> * permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
>>
>>
>>>This license appears to be identical to the Apache License, version 1.1,
>>>with the names changed and clause 3 (an advertising clause) removed. It
>>>looks to be a DFSG-Free license. Clause 4 makes it GPL-incompatible, so
>>>be sure it doesn't link to any GPLed software.
>>
>> I wonder why we considered clause #4 to be free; it seems a little
>> overreaching. It prohibits code reuse with any projects with names like
>> "Vocal Minority" or
>> "Vocalize". (This isn't an objection; just curiosity.)
>
> The DFSG justification is based on DFSG 4, which states that "The
> license may require derived works to carry a different name or version
> number from the original software."
Right. That allows the requirement of not calling it "VOCAL" -- but not
including "VOCAL" in the name at all?
> As for _why_ we allow that, I think
> it is based on the idea of avoiding misrepresentation: anyone should be
> free to create a forked version of a piece of Free Software, but
> attempting to pass it off as the original is misrepresentation. Users
> should always know what they are getting, and be able to make a reasoned
> choice as to where they get their software from.
>
> That said, I think putting such a _specific_ requirement about
> misrepresentation in the license, while still Free, is not a
> particularly good idea. I am a big fan of licenses that state intent
> rather than mechanism.
I think all of debian-legal is.
Actually, it might be worth making a page of advice for license designers,
explaining basic principles like this, with examples. (And examples of why
mechanism specification causes unintended trouble.)
> For example, contrast the GPL's "preferred form
> for modification" with the GFDL's "Transparent" and "Opaque": the former
> states intent, while the latter states mechanism. In this particular
> case, a condition that stated intent would be something like this (taken
> from the zlib license):
>> Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
>> not be misrepresented as being the original software.
Damn, that's a good one.
>
> - Josh Triplett
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Reply to: