The suggestion that the Apache Foundation create a separate trademark license is legally not possible, at least without many more controls over the quality of derivative works than would be acceptable by the open source community.
/Larry Rosen > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Wielaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Mark Wielaard > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 1:48 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: NCSA Open Source License > > > Hi, > > On Sun, 2002-01-20 at 06:15, Albert Chin wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 07:29:12PM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > Um, no. We are talking about a rev of the Apache license > to address > > > some concerns, but there are things about the current > "advertising" > > > clause (you've read it recently, right? It's GPL compatible, we > > > believe) that are pretty positive for us. > > > > According to > > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses, > > neither v1.0 or 1.1 of the Apache License is > GPL-compatible. The 1.1 > > license is on Apache 1.3.22 and what is currently 2.0 in > development. > > The Apache License and the GPL are not compatible. But the (very > minimal) variant of the advertising clause used by the Apache > License is compatible with the GPL. In version 1.1 it now reads: > > 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, > if any, must include the following acknowledgment: > "This product includes software developed by the > Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)." > Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the > software itself, > if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. > > Which seems to me the minimal request you can and should make > of someone distributing (a derived) work. > > What makes it incompatible with the GPL are the 'trademark > clauses' which add extra restrictions to the use of some > words in or talking about derived works. (Note that the > actual words used in these clauses often differ depending on > the actual product, sometimes multiple words are used.) > > 4. The names "Apache" 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. > > If the Apache Software Foundation actually has trademarks on > those words it would be simple to make these licenses GPL > compatible by putting them in a separate Trademark license > grant document such as Abiword has done. > (Copyright/distribution licenses and trademark licenses > really are different things and should have there independent > set of rights/rules.) > > If the foundation does not actually have trademarks on these > words then turning the clauses into requests and not demands > would make them GPL compatible. > > The complete license texts (templates) both version 1.0 and > 1.1 can be found at > <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> > > > Cheers, > > Mark > -- > > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
