NCSA Open Source License

[Mark Wielaard]

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 apache at apache.org.
 
  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