Hi, On Sun, Jun 18, 2000 at 03:46:34PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > I think that clause 1, 2 and 3 are not a problem, but you might have to > > change clause 4 and 5 into a request instead of a demand (which is a added > > restriction if you want sidtribute a derived work that also uses code that > > falls under the GPL). So you might want to say: > > > > 4. Please don't use the names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" > > to endorse or promote products derived from this > > software without prior written permission. For written > > permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 5. If you make products derived from this software please don't call > > them "Apache", or use "Apache" in their name, without prior written > > permission of the Apache Software Foundation. > > > > Maybe just changing the must in a should in the original text would be > > enough, but english isn't my native language. If you want I can contact > > the FSF and discuss it with them. I believe Richard Stallman will come to > > the LSM next month and I could try to discuss it with him then. > > That's why both clauses contain the word "please", and don't say the word > "must". Trademark protection is beyond the scope of a copyright license, > and protection of the Apache name is very important to us - we'd be pretty > pissed by someone releasing a product called "ApachePro", "Apache++", etc, > even if it was open source. Yet we do allow it to be used from time to > time, basically by those who are solid contributors to the code base.
But the The Apache Software License, Version 1.1, which can be found on <http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt> does NOT contain the word please. Just like the old license it currently says: * 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must * not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this * software without prior written permission. For written * permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * 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. That was why I suggested to use the word please in a new version. Or is there already a newer version of the Apache Software License that does not use the word must? Cheers, Mark
