Hi,
Saw that I forgot to answer one of your questions.
On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 07:16:30AM -0700, Kevin A. Burton wrote:
> Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The APL adds several restrictions on naming the derived work or even using
> > the name Apache (which would be better done in a real trademark license
> > IMHO).
> > The latest version of the APL did drop the advertisment clause. But the
> > trademark issues still remain.
>
> Which latest version of the APL. The only one I saw was 1.1 and this still
> has the APL.
That was sloppy wording. I should have said that the new version (1.1)
has a less restrictive advertisement clause then the original Apache license.
It is now possible to do the wording in the end user documentation or in
the software itself, which is easy because you will always include the
original license file to the software as end user documentation which
contains the acknowledgement :) So that part is not GPL incompatible.
But that still leaves the trademark naming clauses (4 and 5) that are
added restrictions that make the apache license GPL incompatible.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Stuff to read:
<http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
What's Wrong with Copy Protection, by John Gilmore
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
