Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, May 02, 2004 at 09:26:10AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > >>> * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor >>> * may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written >>> * permission of Vovida Networks, Inc. > > >>This license appears to be identical to the Apache License, version 1.1, >>with the names changed and clause 3 (an advertising clause) removed. It >>looks to be a DFSG-Free license. Clause 4 makes it GPL-incompatible, so >>be sure it doesn't link to any GPLed software. > > I wonder why we considered clause #4 to be free; it seems a little > overreaching. > It prohibits code reuse with any projects with names like "Vocal Minority" or > "Vocalize". (This isn't an objection; just curiosity.)
The DFSG justification is based on DFSG 4, which states that "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software." As for _why_ we allow that, I think it is based on the idea of avoiding misrepresentation: anyone should be free to create a forked version of a piece of Free Software, but attempting to pass it off as the original is misrepresentation. Users should always know what they are getting, and be able to make a reasoned choice as to where they get their software from. That said, I think putting such a _specific_ requirement about misrepresentation in the license, while still Free, is not a particularly good idea. I am a big fan of licenses that state intent rather than mechanism. For example, contrast the GPL's "preferred form for modification" with the GFDL's "Transparent" and "Opaque": the former states intent, while the latter states mechanism. In this particular case, a condition that stated intent would be something like this (taken from the zlib license): > Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must > not be misrepresented as being the original software. - Josh Triplett
