Don Armstrong wrote: > On Tue, 04 May 2004, Branden Robinson wrote: >> Does anyone know if the latest version of the Apache Software >> License still retains these terms? > > No, thankfully Apache Source License v 2.0 ditched them for the more > sane (and more to the point) §6: > > 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the > trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the > Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in > describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the > NOTICE file.[1] > > Which is probably what the license should have said in the beginning. Heh. :-)
> [We probably should really review Apache Source License v 2.0 > sometime... §3 (patent reciprocity) and §4d (acknowledgements in the > NOTICE file) are two clauses that are near the border, and while I > think they're free, I'm interested in others opinions of them.[2]] > > > Don Armstrong > > 1: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 > 2: I know we discussed §3 when it was proposed, but it's > interesting... §4d may also be important to discuss, especially in the > context of droit d' auter and in the context of free documentation > licenses. I remember giving the Apache Foundation detailed amendments to 4d (which they adopted) so as to make it non-objectionable. I think it's sufficiently free. It's *very* narrowly tailored to forestall a lot of problems, unlike similar clauses in other licenses. Similarly for section 3; sentence 1 is a permission grant, while sentence 2 is very narrowly tailored to protect the freedom of the Work itself, rather than just to attack software patents in general -- it prevents a particular scheme which could otherwise be successfully used by a patent-holder to make other people's work proprietary to the patent-holder. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
