You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com.INVALID> on 2017/05/19 08:53:48 UTC
"Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Hi all
Just stumbled up this „Modified Apache 2.0 License“: https://github.com/wg/wrk/blob/master/LICENSE
Is there anything to be done about this ?
Regards
Felix
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
A good question. Since that is a private list I am forwarding.
Regards,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 19, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Are folks from trademarks@ on this list? Seems like an TM issue to me.
>
> -Alex
>
> From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
> Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 7:22 AM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
>
> Hi,
>
> I think there may be a minor/community issue including directly “Apache License” in the name.
> They are free to modify the license however they want as long as it’s clearly
> indicated, but socially I would hope they would come up with a more distinct name than
> “modified” Apache License 2.0.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> From: Sean Owen <sr...@apache.org>
> Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
> Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:08 AM
> To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
>
> For anyone wondering what the modification is, it's this addition to section 4.
>
> > (e) If the Derivative Work includes substantial changes to features
> > or functionality of the Work, then you must remove the name of
> > the Work, and any derivation thereof, from all copies that you
> > distribute, whether in Source or Object form, except as required
> > in copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices.
>
> What's the proposed problem with this? people can license stuff however they want. Is the question reusing the license text itself?
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Just stumbled up this „Modified Apache 2.0 License“: https://github.com/wg/wrk/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Is there anything to be done about this ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Are folks from trademarks@ on this list? Seems like an TM issue to me.
-Alex
From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 7:22 AM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Hi,
I think there may be a minor/community issue including directly “Apache License” in the name.
They are free to modify the license however they want as long as it’s clearly
indicated, but socially I would hope they would come up with a more distinct name than
“modified” Apache License 2.0.
Cheers,
Chris
From: Sean Owen <sr...@apache.org>>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:08 AM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org<ma...@apache.org>" <le...@apache.org>>
Subject: Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
For anyone wondering what the modification is, it's this addition to section 4.
> (e) If the Derivative Work includes substantial changes to features
> or functionality of the Work, then you must remove the name of
> the Work, and any derivation thereof, from all copies that you
> distribute, whether in Source or Object form, except as required
> in copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices.
What's the proposed problem with this? people can license stuff however they want. Is the question reusing the license text itself?
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com.invalid>> wrote:
Hi all
Just stumbled up this „Modified Apache 2.0 License“: https://github.com/wg/wrk/blob/master/LICENSE<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fwg%2Fwrk%2Fblob%2Fmaster%2FLICENSE&data=02%7C01%7C%7C751be93446e14f06647608d49ec274c2%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636308005408815756&sdata=by%2FL%2FXeseIV4GW4Ss1gu6OeU5G504SILeI2xbTCTG4A%3D&reserved=0>
Is there anything to be done about this ?
Regards
Felix
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>.
Hi,
I think there may be a minor/community issue including directly “Apache License” in the name.
They are free to modify the license however they want as long as it’s clearly
indicated, but socially I would hope they would come up with a more distinct name than
“modified” Apache License 2.0.
Cheers,
Chris
From: Sean Owen <sr...@apache.org>
Reply-To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
Date: Friday, May 19, 2017 at 2:08 AM
To: "legal-discuss@apache.org" <le...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
For anyone wondering what the modification is, it's this addition to section 4.
> (e) If the Derivative Work includes substantial changes to features
> or functionality of the Work, then you must remove the name of
> the Work, and any derivation thereof, from all copies that you
> distribute, whether in Source or Object form, except as required
> in copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices.
What's the proposed problem with this? people can license stuff however they want. Is the question reusing the license text itself?
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
Hi all
Just stumbled up this „Modified Apache 2.0 License“: https://github.com/wg/wrk/blob/master/LICENSE
Is there anything to be done about this ?
Regards
Felix
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Roman Shaposhnik wrote on Fri, 19 May 2017 10:16 -0700:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
> > Imo it should not call itself Modified Apache 2.0 License. It should not contain the term "Apache" in the license name at all.
>
> I'm ambivalent on this, but any rate it ain't a legal issue -- it is a (tm) one.
Almost makes one want to license the ALv2 under the Artistic License, doesn't it?
[[[
c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly
document the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together
with instructions on where to get the Standard Version.
]]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>.
GitHub didn't mark it as Apache, the authors selected Apache as the license
when pushing the project to GitHub.
On May 19, 2017 12:39 PM, "Felix Meschberger" <fm...@adobe.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Absolutely: GitHub marks it as plain old AL2 !
>
> Regards
> Felix
>
> > Am 19.05.2017 um 21:21 schrieb Mark Struberg <struberg@yahoo.de.INVALID
> >:
> >
> > Yes indeed! You are right, it's most likely more a trademarks problem.
> >
> > One other very practical problem: there are many programs which scan the
> LICENSE files and 'auto detect' licenses.
> > And I bet a beer that this will get filed as ALv2 by many of the tools -
> without any hint to the modification!
> >
> > So I'm not really a fan of having this 'Modified' AL...
> >
> > LieGrue,
> > strub
> >
> >> Am 19.05.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Mark Struberg
> >> <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Imo it should not call itself Modified Apache 2.0 License. It should
> not contain the term "Apache" in the license name at all.
> >>
> >> I'm ambivalent on this, but any rate it ain't a legal issue -- it is a
> (tm) one.
> >>
> >> Hence this question should go to Shane.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Absolutely: GitHub marks it as plain old AL2 !
Regards
Felix
> Am 19.05.2017 um 21:21 schrieb Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>:
>
> Yes indeed! You are right, it's most likely more a trademarks problem.
>
> One other very practical problem: there are many programs which scan the LICENSE files and 'auto detect' licenses.
> And I bet a beer that this will get filed as ALv2 by many of the tools - without any hint to the modification!
>
> So I'm not really a fan of having this 'Modified' AL...
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>> Am 19.05.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Mark Struberg
>> <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
>>> Imo it should not call itself Modified Apache 2.0 License. It should not contain the term "Apache" in the license name at all.
>>
>> I'm ambivalent on this, but any rate it ain't a legal issue -- it is a (tm) one.
>>
>> Hence this question should go to Shane.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
Yes indeed! You are right, it's most likely more a trademarks problem.
One other very practical problem: there are many programs which scan the LICENSE files and 'auto detect' licenses.
And I bet a beer that this will get filed as ALv2 by many of the tools - without any hint to the modification!
So I'm not really a fan of having this 'Modified' AL...
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 19.05.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>:
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
>> Imo it should not call itself Modified Apache 2.0 License. It should not contain the term "Apache" in the license name at all.
>
> I'm ambivalent on this, but any rate it ain't a legal issue -- it is a (tm) one.
>
> Hence this question should go to Shane.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
(Note mixed lists)
Separately, I've opened an issue with the Licensee code that GitHub uses
to display "this repo is licensed" data, since having both a modified
title as well as additional restrictions is something that Github should
make clearer.
https://github.com/benbalter/licensee/issues/192
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
(legal-discuss@ -> bcc; to: =+ trademarks@)
Roman Shaposhnik wrote on 5/19/17 1:16 PM:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Mark Struberg
> <st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
>> Imo it should not call itself Modified Apache 2.0 License. It should not contain the term "Apache" in the license name at all.
>
> I'm ambivalent on this, but any rate it ain't a legal issue -- it is a (tm) one.
>
> Hence this question should go to Shane.
Please - use the appropriate *list*, especially the week many of us are
traveling back from ApacheCon. That way all the relevant people can see
it, and any discussion and resolution gets into the archive.
Any trademarks questions should go to trademarks@apache.org, which is
privately archived and read by the Brand Committee as well as other members.
Thanks,
- Shane
--
- Shane (going to sleep... v. long day)
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:34 AM, Mark Struberg
<st...@yahoo.de.invalid> wrote:
> Imo it should not call itself Modified Apache 2.0 License. It should not contain the term "Apache" in the license name at all.
I'm ambivalent on this, but any rate it ain't a legal issue -- it is a (tm) one.
Hence this question should go to Shane.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Mark Struberg <st...@yahoo.de.INVALID>.
Imo it should not call itself Modified Apache 2.0 License. It should not contain the term "Apache" in the license name at all.
It might use another name and as first sentence explain that it is based on the ALv2 with exception of section (e).
Just my personal .02 of course.
LieGrue,
strub
> Am 19.05.2017 um 11:08 schrieb Sean Owen <sr...@apache.org>:
>
> For anyone wondering what the modification is, it's this addition to section 4.
>
> > (e) If the Derivative Work includes substantial changes to features
> > or functionality of the Work, then you must remove the name of
> > the Work, and any derivation thereof, from all copies that you
> > distribute, whether in Source or Object form, except as required
> > in copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices.
>
> What's the proposed problem with this? people can license stuff however they want. Is the question reusing the license text itself?
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM Felix Meschberger <fm...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Just stumbled up this „Modified Apache 2.0 License“: https://github.com/wg/wrk/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Is there anything to be done about this ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Sean Owen <sr...@apache.org>.
For anyone wondering what the modification is, it's this addition to
section 4.
> (e) If the Derivative Work includes substantial changes to features
> or functionality of the Work, then you must remove the name of
> the Work, and any derivation thereof, from all copies that you
> distribute, whether in Source or Object form, except as required
> in copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices.
What's the proposed problem with this? people can license stuff however
they want. Is the question reusing the license text itself?
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM Felix Meschberger
<fm...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Just stumbled up this „Modified Apache 2.0 License“:
> https://github.com/wg/wrk/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Is there anything to be done about this ?
>
> Regards
> Felix
Re: "Modified Apache 2.0 License"
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Felix Meschberger wrote on 5/19/17 4:53 AM:
> Hi all
>
> Just stumbled up this „Modified Apache 2.0 License“: https://github.com/wg/wrk/blob/master/LICENSE
Question: before this question, has anyone reading this list ever seen,
or heard of anyone being confused by, one of these "Modified Apache
License"s anywhere?
See also:
http://graphics.pixar.com/opensubdiv/license.html
This "Modified" version is reproduced in a number of graphical
processing software packages, likely related to Pixar's use. It simply
replaces section 6, by subtly changing the wording twice.
* Apache (original)
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.
* Pixar (modified)
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor and
its affiliates, except as required to comply with Section 4(c) of the
License and to reproduce the content of the NOTICE file.
- Pixar adds "...and its affiliates" after Licensor, which seems wholly
superfluous since no trademark rights are granted anywhere anyways.
- Pixar changes from our "...for reasonable and customary use in
describing the origin of the Work" into their own "...to comply with
Section 4(c) of the License". I can see some lawyers believing that
this makes the trademark carve-out stricter and more precise. But
again, since no trademark rights are granted elsewhere in the license,
this also seems superfluous.
--
- Shane
https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org