On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:07:01 +0000, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> On 28/3/03 0:41, "Gianugo Rabellino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> What am I missing?
>
> org.APACHE...
>
> That name is protected by the license AFAIK, but am no lawyer at all...
I'm also not a lawyer but I find the statement worrying and if someone is
going to say something in illegal, they'd better be right.
Take a look at the two statements regarding name use.
4. The names "Apache Cocoon" 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.
I don't believe that points 4 and 5 are violated by "package
org.apache.xmlform" any more than the statement "import
org.apache.xmlform"; the license precludes neither one of these things.
If the ASF is going to enforce the former using these statements are we
all going to need written permission to import apache packages or
implement apache interfaces.
-k.
--
If you don't test then your code is only a collection of bugs which
apparently behave like a working program.
Website: http://www.rocketred.com.au/blogs/kevin/
