new license to review

Mark Rafn dagon at
Fri May 7 14:10:58 UTC 1999

On 7 May 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> bruce at writes:
>  > > No modifications to Server Identification Field. You agree not
>  > > toremove or modify the Server Identification Field contained in the
>  > > ResponseHeader as defined in Section 1.6 and 1.7.
>  > 
>  > This appears to be a restriction upon modification, in violation of OSD #4.
> IMHO it's no worse than the Artistic License, which requires you to
> change the name of the program if you break compatibility, or the BSD
> License, which requires you to acknowledge original authorship.

It's the opposite of the Artistic License.  Requiring someone _NOT_ to use
the "normal" name for a modified distribution makes some amount of sense,
and for any trademarked name would be completely required.

Prohibiting a change of name is another beast altogether.  This is the
same issue we had with the chess program earlier this week.  If you can't
change the name, it's not free.

You _CAN_ probably demand that all versions including modified ones with a
different name include a custom header like:
  X-Server-Copyright: Based on WebFoo (c) 1999 Foo Inc.
This would be no different than the requirement that interactive programs
display GNU copyright when the output format isn't a necessary part of the
program.  Of course, it _IS_ an extra few dozen bytes with each request,
and it's going to annoy some people.
Mark Rafn    dagon at    <>   !G

More information about the License-discuss mailing list