OVPL summary

Michael Bernstein webmaven at cox.net
Wed Sep 14 19:37:14 UTC 2005

On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:56 -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2005, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> > Mark Radcliffe wrote:
> >> I agree that such differences in rights is not discrimination
> >> under the OSD. Many of the existing licenses are not
> >> perfectly recipricol.
> >
> > As Mark correctly says, many OSI-approved licenses, including the venerable
> > MPL and CPL licenses, are not perfectly reciprocal. They grant (or reserve)
> > some rights to an initial developer that other licensees don't have.
> I'll note the Apache license does as well - no one has rights to use the 
> Apache trademark in their derivative works.  While that is leagues 
> different than "all your derivative works are belong to us", it's still a 
> right reserved for the ID and disproportionate (your patch to our code 
> helps make Apache better and builds the brand name you don't have rights 
> to).

By (somewhat weak, admittedly) analogy, the Apache license does not:

- require contributor trademarks to be made available to the ID

- prevent the contributor from creating a rebranded version of Apache
code to which Apache has no trademark rights

- Michael Bernstein

More information about the License-discuss mailing list