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

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

Glenn Maynard wrote:

> 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.
> /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
> 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.

It's been allowed mostly because they don't really enforce it.  For
instance, Debian's modified version of Apache, which is a derived work, has
"apache" in its name.  Furthermore, they've stated that they don't intend
to enforce it strictly, and it's not present in the new license.

I certainly wouldn't accept this clause in a license without additional
assurances from the copyright holder.  We said as much to X-Oz.

>> > 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.
> /usr/share/doc/apache/copyright
> 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.

They normally appear in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright, in Debian.  :-)  Does
that make a difference?  I think this is a "loose" clause.

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

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: