On Feb 03, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > This clause has been examined carefully in the past and deemed ugly > but not non-free (at least, with no serious objections)--at least in > the "Apache", etc. cases. However, I don't think that should be extended > to the general case; "nor may 'net' appear in their name" is obviously > not free. It's obviously not so obvious. > It's an impossible line to draw, between "PHP" and "Apache" > being annoying and "net" being completely unreasonable, which suggests > that it really shouldn't be considered free. No, it's quite easy: "net" is a common name, "PHP" and "Apache" are not (and are even the names of the software being licensed). -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature