Josh Triplett wrote: > Nathanael Nerode wrote: >> Ryan Rasmussen wrote: >>>10. Trademarks. This License does not grant any rights to use the >>>trademarks or trade names "Apple", "Apple Computer", "Mac", "Mac OS", >>>"QuickTime", "QuickTime Streaming Server" or any other trademarks, >>>service marks, logos or trade names belonging to Apple (collectively >>>"Apple Marks") or to any trademark, service mark, logo or trade name >>>belonging to any Contributor. >> >> This is good. >> >>>You agree not to use any Apple Marks in >>>or as part of the name of products derived from the Original Code or >>>to endorse or promote products derived from the Original Code other >>>than as expressly permitted by and in strict compliance at all times >>>with Apple's third party trademark usage guidelines which are posted >>>at http://www.apple.com/legal/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html. >> >> This is not good, because it may go beyond trademark law. This is >> acceptable if and only if Apple's trademark usage guidelines allow >> everything which is normally permitted under trademark law. I think they >> do, but the fact that they could change at any time may make this >> unacceptable. This should be considered a fixable license bug, frankly. > > First of all, the changeable trademark guidelines only grant additional > permission to use the trademarks, so if the requirement to not use the > trademarks at all is Free, It's not.
> then the changeable trademark guidelines are > not an issue. Without that part, the clause becomes: >> You agree not to use any Apple Marks in or as part of the name of >> products derived from the Original Code or to endorse or promote >> products derived from the Original Code > > Now, quoting from the Apache license, version 1.1: >> 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must >> not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this >> software without prior written permission. For written >> permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] We've allowed this grudgingly, I guess; perhaps because "us[ing the names] to endorse or promote" is a rather minimal category of things, normally restricted under trademark law anyway, and only relating to advertising. I do not consider it necessarily DFSG-free, however, as it may prohibit statements in advertising like "Apache-compatible", which are permitted by trademark law. >> 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", >> nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written >> permission of the Apache Software Foundation. This is certainly not DFSG-free and never has been. It's a major reason why we got this changed in the Apache license 2.0. *sigh* Furthermore, Debian is currently in violation of this clause, as is nearly every distributor. This is more honored in the breach than in the observance. > This has the same restrictions as the above clause of the APSL. So if > the Apache license, version 1.1, is considered DFSG-free, Which it isn't. > then so should > this clause of the APSL. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
