cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pier Fumagalli <p...@betaversion.org>
Subject Re: [ANN] XMLForm as a standalone servlet toolkit
Date Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:45:27 GMT
On 28/3/03 6:54 am, "Kevin O'Neill" <kevin@rocketred.com.au> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:07:01 +0000, Pier Fumagalli wrote:
> 
>> On 28/3/03 0:41, "Gianugo Rabellino" <gianugo@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> What am I missing?
>> 
>> org.APACHE...
>> 
>> That name is protected by the license AFAIK, but am no lawyer at all...
> 
> I'm also not a lawyer but I find the statement worrying and if someone is
> going to say something in illegal, they'd better be right.
> 
> Take a look at the two statements regarding name use.
> 
> 4. The names "Apache Cocoon" 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
>   apache@apache.org.
> 
> 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.
> 
> I don't believe that points 4 and 5 are violated by "package
> org.apache.xmlform" any more than the statement "import
> org.apache.xmlform"; the license precludes neither one of these things.
> If the ASF is going to enforce the former using these statements are we
> all going to need written permission to import apache packages or
> implement apache interfaces.

It is not 4 in my own opinion... I believe it's more point 5:

"Apache" may not appear in the name of a product derived from this software:
clearly a single Java class is an entity of its own... If it's a modified
version of our copy it's a "derived product" and the derived product name
(only THAT class I can download through CVS) is "org.apache.abcde.MyOwn"...

So, the name "Apache" appear in the name of the product derived from our
software, this product being the single class someone modified.

At least this is my personal opinion.

    Pier

BTW (Standard disclaimer as per last email in this thread applies)


Mime
View raw message