Re: VOCAL (Vovidia Communications License)
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." 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. 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.
- Josh Triplett
Reply to: