[License-discuss] Modified Apache License

Brian Behlendorf brian at behlendorf.com
Sun Feb 7 20:56:27 UTC 2021


Nothing about the proposed changes seems OSI non-conformant (though from a 
practical point of view I question their net value) but, since we're on 
the subject of trademarks, the Apache Software Foundation has objected in 
the past to folks using the phrase "modified Apache license" to describe 
licenses that are sometimes much more substantial departures (and non-OSI 
compliant) but still inherit the same degree of public trust.

https://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html#mod-license

https://www.zdnet.com/article/redis-labs-and-common-clause-attacked-where-it-hurts-with-open-source-code/

Looks like this might be a minor but still live issue for Disney:

https://github.com/PixarAnimationStudios/ruby-jss/issues/27

Not only is it important to avoid confusion in the market, it's important 
to ensure that SPDX identifiers are correctly used so that automated tools 
are able to audit software stacks for license conformance, and something 
like "modified Apache license" may lead someone inadvertantly to add an 
Apache SPDX identifier to the top.

Brian


On Sat, 6 Feb 2021, Russell Nelson wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
>


More information about the License-discuss mailing list