[License-discuss] Modified Apache License

[McCoy Smith]

You probably want to explain the rationale for your changes in the language,
which in redline would look like this:

6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor and its
affiliates, except as required for reasonable and customary use in
describing the origin of the Work to comply with Section 4(c) of the License
and to reproduce reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.

 

From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
Behalf Of Langley, Stuart
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 3:48 PM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License

 

Hello all, this is my first attempt at posting something new so we'll see
how it goes.

 

Disney has been using a modified Apache license to release software.  We
have not yet sought OSI recognition of this modification.  I've been
hesitant to present this for consideration because the modifications are so
minor.  The concern is that the Apache 2.0 is too ambiguous for our taste
about trademark rights.  The modified language is:

 

Amending Apache license language &  file headers. New text: Copyright 20XX
<INSERT BUSINESS ENTITY>Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
"Apache License")with the following modification; you may not use this file
except incompliance with the Apache License and the following modification
to it: 

Section 6. Trademarks. is deleted and replaced with:6.   Trademarks. This
License does not grant permission to use the tradenames, trademarks, service
marks, or   product names of the Licensor and its affiliates, except as
required to   comply with Section 4(c) of the License and to   reproduce the
content of the NOTICE file. You may obtain a  copy of   the Apache License
athttp://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0Unless required by   applicable
law or   agreed to in   writing, software distributed under the Apache
License with the above modification is distributed on   an   "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR   CONDITIONS OF ANYKIND, either express or   implied.
See the Apache License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the Apache License.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts.  The distinction about trademarks is
important to us, and should be to others who are concerned about losing
control of their trademarks to "reasonable and customary" use allowed by
Apache 2.0.  Would a license like this be a valuable enough distinction from
Apache 2.0 to merit a separate license?

 

Stuart T. Langley

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210206/fefca8be/attachment.html>