Right, thanks a lot for that reference. What Kirk is looking at doing via AdoptOpenJDK is: "Free copies of Apache NetBeans software under the Apache License and support services for Apache NetBeans are available at AdoptOpenJDK."
Meanwhile, since Emilian has modified Apache NetBeans (added some modules, additional features, etc), the second case in the link you sent applies: "My own derivative works of Apache NetBeans software and support services for those derivative works are available as CoolBeans, i.e., under my own trademarks at my website." So, based on this, if AdoptOpenJDK make no changes at all, but simply aim to redistribute the same Apache NetBeans that we release here, they can use the 'Apache NetBeans' name. However, they would need to redistribute the binary that we produce in a release, i.e., they couldn't go to the GitHub repo, do a clone, and then create some subset of it to produce their own binary -- since that binary could, for example, potentially, provide a distribution that only contains HTML features, theoretically. They could not call that Apache NetBeans, even though they haven't modified the sources in any way? Gj On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 9:30 AM Neil C Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 31 May 2019, 09:21 Geertjan Wielenga, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I believe so, but cannot confirm with 100% certainty. > > > > Is there ever 100% certainty?! :-) > > The first example of nominative fair use here appears to cover exactly this > though? > > https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/#guidelines > > I assume we might want to clarify the distinction between that and > derivative though. Eg. Removing modules / clusters, etc. > > Best wishes, > > Neil > > > >
