Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
What you want is a clause like this:
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document. Distribution of modified copies is only allowed
if you make it clear that the modified copy is *not* the actual Apache License."
That is better.
I think so too.
I certainly wouldn't want to have committed a copyright violation already, so agree wholeheartedly.
I wish we could find a shorter version, or just leave it out entirely.
Hmmm, I'd prefer to have it I think.
There are already many projects that use the Apache license verbatim instead of using it as a template.
Most of the people I pointed this out to, were not aware of this, so IMHO it's important that something like this is included (unless I have misunderstood the purpose or unless this phrase is not clear enough WRT this issue).
On the other hand, if people want to use this as a template, they will actually be modifying the license and thus cannot call it Apache License but Apache-like license for instance. In reality, everyone calls it Apache license nevertheless, indicating it as everything except the subjects, so there would be a terminology mismatch here.
I think the concern is whether the actual text has been modified, not whether another licensor has adopted the license for its use. Perhaps the inverse of the second sentence proposed by Nathanael, so there's an obligation not to misrepresent the nature of the license rather than an affirmative duty to state "This isn't Apache." This could read: "You may modify the text of this license document but you should not identify any such modified license as the 'Apache v.2.0 license.'" Or words to that effect.
