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

Re: A radical approach to rewriting the DFSG

On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 08:12:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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.

libssl-dev/copyright: *    nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written
apache-utils/copyright:     nor may "mod_ssl" appear in their names without prior
php4/copyright:     may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
subversion/copyright:nor may "Tigris" appear in their names without prior written

and a particularly evil one,

sudo/copyright:      may "Sudo" appear in their names without specific prior written

> >> > 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.
> > 
> > /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 think that's a reasonable interpretation.  For some reason, I was
interpreting "the software itself" as "the binary itself"; I suppose the
endlessly repeated arguments about "software" finally managed to confuse

Are there any licenses requiring an acknowledgement in the documentation
which /usr/share/doc/*/copyright doesn't satisfy, which we should examine?
If not, "N. Acknowledgements in documentation" can probably be removed.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: