Apache vs. BSD licenses

phil hunt philh at comuno.freeserve.co.uk
Tue Mar 20 18:54:54 UTC 2001

On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> Stallman has indicated to me that clause 4 ("Apache" may not be used to
> endorse) will be compatible with the GPL v3, 

That's a good change.

> but clause 5 ("Apache" may
> not appear in the product name) will not. 

That isn't good, and is IMO puzzling. Putting "Apache" in a product's name 
could be done in order to use the Apache developers' reputation and
good name to endorse (indirectly) the product.

> I think this is unfortunate, as
> in a digital environment, your good name is your only asset, and
> protecting it shouldn't be hard.  I don't see asking someone to choose a
> different name for a derivative work as not qualifying as "free" as the
> FSF defines it.

It would be nice if there was a license like the GPL, but compatible
with all open source / free software licenses. I have suggested this
to RMS; he replied that legal difficulties prevented this.

***** Phil Hunt ***** 
"An unforseen issue has arisen with your computer. Don't worry your silly 
little head about what has gone wrong; here's a pretty animation of a 
paperclip to look at instead."
         -- Windows2007 error message

More information about the License-discuss mailing list