www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Santiago Gala" <santiago.g...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: When is a derivative not a derivative?
Date Wed, 21 Feb 2007 06:58:15 GMT
On 2/21/07, Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 February 2007 03:08, Wilfredo Sánchez Vega wrote:
> >    The compilation can't be called Apache, but it is certainly
> > reasonable to say that it includes Apache, unless they've modified it,
> > in which case it is no longer Apache.
> So, example, Debian is in violation?? The Apache Web server package is
> called "apache2" and only contains 2 files plus the dependency
> information.
> Clearly not something produced at Apache Software Foundation.

I don't know the debian packages, but most distros package reparately
modules, help files, etc. They add most of the httpd components to the
compilation, even if they split it in several packages.

My criteria here would be something like:
- Debian (or gentoo, or Fedora, ...) are **always** sending uptream, (here)
all the patches. Sometimes they even take those from bugzilla/jura or source
control. The only exceptions are typically init.d scripts, web pages, or
other integration or branding content and even those they sometimes send if
we are willing to accept them
- So, their delta is "accidental" (tending to zero in time), and no
distribution boasts about their apache being "superior" because of their
"enhancements". For binary distros, it is all about timing and mixing of
patches (as interprets do with the score) and not about permanent changes

They are all derivatives, but their differential falls under "fair use" and
tends to zero. OpenBSD seems to boast that they are  **not** shipping
current apache, but rather something definitely different and better So, I
think their use is not the same, and the apache brand is misused.

Same would happen, IMO, if a distro consistently spoiled the quality with
bad patches or kept them privative. Then we should be stricter in our
interpretation of the concept and ask them to use a different name.

But Open Source is about Source, so shouldn't the whole discussion revolve
> around whether I can take the Source of a project, compile it and
> distribute
> it under its original name.
> Otherwise, the implications on the Linux market will just crumble, where
> every
> Apache project will be known as something else on each Linux
> distribution...
> Unreasonable.

Funny, this is exactly what firefox is doing. My copy in gentoo is called
"Bon Echo", because the Mozilla Foundation branding rules are relatively
strict and nobody really cares to patch the branding away (not 100% sure of
the details, but I can search them). Somebody told me debian uses a
different name too, not sure.

 My User-Agent is: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; es-ES; rv:
Gecko/20070218 BonEcho/


View raw message