On 28/3/03 6:54 am, "Kevin O'Neill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
It is not 4 in my own opinion... I believe it's more point 5:
"Apache" may not appear in the name of a product derived from this software:
clearly a single Java class is an entity of its own... If it's a modified
version of our copy it's a "derived product" and the derived product name
(only THAT class I can download through CVS) is "org.apache.abcde.MyOwn"...
So, the name "Apache" appear in the name of the product derived from our
software, this product being the single class someone modified.
At least this is my personal opinion.
Pier
BTW (Standard disclaimer as per last email in this thread applies)
