[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

As a brief observation unrelated to this subthread: this also implicitly
deals with the GPL#8 problem, by not requiring any special casing for
the GPL at all.

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 12:00:03AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I'd like to append something like the following:
> The license may not place further constraints on the naming or
> labelling of the derivative work. This includes specifying the form of
> such notices, or the manner in which derivative works must be named.


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.

I think that this is something that shouldn't have been allowed, but has
since become extremely widespread, and it probably wouldn't be productive
to start rejecting it--it's a problem, but a relatively minor one.

> > N. Acknowledgements in documentation
> > The license for a free program may require that end-user
> > documentation which accompanies the program contains a short
> > acknowledgement that credits the author.
> That's horrible. This could mean that we have to include the blasted
> things in the release notes. Survey of licenses and a tighter
> restriction before we write this one in, please. I'm not sufficiently
> familiar with such clauses to be able to pull one out of the air.


3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution,
   if any, must include the following acknowledgment:
      "This product includes software developed by the
       Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)."
   Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself,
   if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear.

(I only realized recently how horrible this license is.)

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: