Josh Triplett wrote: > 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." Right. That allows the requirement of not calling it "VOCAL" -- but not including "VOCAL" in the name at all?
> 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. I think all of debian-legal is. Actually, it might be worth making a page of advice for license designers, explaining basic principles like this, with examples. (And examples of why mechanism specification causes unintended trouble.) > 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. Damn, that's a good one. > > - Josh Triplett -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
