Compatibility of the AFL with the GPL

[Richard Stallman]

      Under
    U.S. trademark law, anyone can say "I've built a derivative work of
    Apache" without using Apache's good name, or yours, to endorse or
    promote their software.

It looks like use of Apache's good name to me.  If it isn't what it
looks like, I guess these words are not clear.

			     I think the words "endorse" and "promote" are
    clear enough.

Perhaps this shows those words are highly confusing.

      Do you want me to add the
    phrase "pretty please" to the end of the provision so that people will
    recognize it is a reminder rather than an order to do or not to do
    something?  

Being serious rather than facetious, if this provision said "This
license does not grant any license to use the trademarks ..." then it
would clearly be a reminder and it would not be incompatible with the
GPL.

    > I put on it has to carry forward the same terms, at least on 
    > that original code, unless I indemnify those I give software 
    > to by meeting the terms on their behalf?
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3