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.