Lawrence E. Rosen lrosen at
Thu Oct 24 18:11:54 UTC 2002

Here's the new Attribution Rights clause of the AFL/OSL:

    Attribution Rights. You must retain, in the Source
    Code of any Derivative Works that You create, all
    copyright, patent or trademark notices from the
    Source Code of the Original Work, as well as any
    notices of licensing and any descriptive text
    identified therein as an "Attribution Notice."
    You must cause the Source Code for any Derivative
    Works that You create to carry a prominent
    Attribution Notice reasonably calculated to
    inform recipients that You have modified the
    Original Work. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Forrest J Cavalier III [mailto:forrest at] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 8:32 AM
> To: license-discuss at
> Cc: mibsoft at
> Subject: Re: Copyright
> > > modifications, and distribute my own version, can I remove all 
> > > instances of "RedHat" ? 2. If I am allowed to, to what extent?
> > 
> The OSD allows licenses to prohibit that.  Some jurisdictions 
> may prohibit it.
> As John Cowan noted separately, trademark law can require
> the removal of trademarks. But a copyright notice is not
> a trademark.
> But the answers "does the law and license permit it" and 
> "should it be done" are probably different.
> Of course no one "should" do that.  I think there are the 
> obvious ethical reasons.
> I think there is an important practical consideration:
> By removing all traces of the authorship, you will appear
> to be the responsible party, and not a mere re-distributor
> of the work.  That may result in legal liability you
> didn't count on.  
> You must be sure to communicate all license terms and
> warranty disclaimers, and who is offering the license
> and making the disclaimers.  Doing anything else is fraud 
> (usually illegal) or creates liability you don't want to assume.
> --
> license-discuss archive is at

license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list