[License-discuss] Modified Apache License

[Langley, Stuart]

Thank you.  The rationale is that in a company like ours (Disney in this case, but others obviously would share this concern) trademarks are a fundamental value of the company.  We license marks very intentionally and are not comfortable with constraining trademark use only by "reasonable and customary" as that is 1) subject to interpretation by licensees, and 2) may change over time.

There are many other licenses that do not grant trademark rights at all, but we couldn't find one that is as complete or consistent with our preferences as Apache.



From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of McCoy Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 6, 2021 6:30 PM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Modified Apache License

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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20210207/4adf18fc/attachment.html>