[License-discuss] Modified Apache License

[Russell Nelson]

Further, since this seems a reasonable change, why not present it to 
Apache as a friendly amendment and see if they want to make it into an 
Apache 2.1 license? I mean, if it's good for Disney, why wouldn't it be 
good for everyone else?
-russ

On 2/6/21 8:29 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210206/a8167f24/attachment-0001.html>