Subject: RE: NCSA Open Source License
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:50:09 -0800

The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark
license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls
over the quality of derivative works than would be acceptable by the
open source community.  

/Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:mark@elsschot.crynwr.com] On 
> Behalf Of Mark Wielaard
> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:48 AM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 06:15, Albert Chin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:29:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> > > Um, no.  We are talking about a rev of the Apache license 
> to address 
> > > some concerns, but there are things about the current 
> "advertising" 
> > > clause (you've read it recently, right?  It's GPL compatible, we
> > > believe) that are pretty positive for us.
> > 
> > According to 
> > 
> http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses,
> > neither v1.0 or 1.1 of the Apache License is 
> GPL-compatible. The 1.1 
> > license is on Apache 1.3.22 and what is currently 2.0 in 
> development.
> 
> The Apache License and the GPL are not compatible. But the (very
> minimal) variant of the advertising clause used by the Apache 
> License is compatible with the GPL. In version 1.1 it now reads:
> 
>  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.
> 
> Which seems to me the minimal request you can and should make 
> of someone distributing (a derived) work.
> 
> What makes it incompatible with the GPL are the 'trademark 
> clauses' which add extra restrictions to the use of some 
> words in or talking about derived works. (Note that the 
> actual words used in these clauses often differ depending on 
> the actual product, sometimes multiple words are used.)
> 
>   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 apache@apache.org.
>  
>   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.
> 
> If the Apache Software Foundation actually has trademarks on 
> those words it would be simple to make these licenses GPL 
> compatible by putting them in a separate Trademark license 
> grant document such as Abiword has done. 
> (Copyright/distribution licenses and trademark licenses 
> really are different things and should have there independent 
> set of rights/rules.)
> 
> If the foundation does not actually have trademarks on these 
> words then turning the clauses into requests and not demands 
> would make them GPL compatible.
> 
> The complete license texts (templates) both version 1.0 and 
> 1.1 can be found at > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/>
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mark
> --
> 
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3