On 11/11/21 9:35 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 2:59 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 1:51 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> But that implies that a word can't contain another word, I think?
>>
> Now we're having fun!
>
>> "UWash" for example I would argue contains a number of words
("ash",
>> "wash", "as", "a", for starters). Unless
"word" has a special
>> domain-specific meaning in the world of font foundry names (does it?)
>> it is not clear to me that this developer would agree that "UWash"
>> does not violate the restriction.
>>
> The most reasonable interpretation in my view is that the context
> matters. So a word that is a variation of the form would be the same
> "word" for the purposes of the licence. For example, "ash" and
> "ashen". But if it's a string that happens to appear in another,
> unrelated word, they are separate words. For example, "ash" and
> "wash". In my original example, the fact that "UWash" is a name
the
> University of Washington uses supports the "it's not the same word"
> argument. If I were to name a font "uwash-ttyp0", the "they're
> separate words" case is weaker, but not a slam dunk.
>
> I don't think you're arguing against the general concept (e.g. ASL 2.0
> section 6), so the question is really "what's the minimum length?" If
> General Electric released software under ASL 2.0 (replacing "Apache"
> with "General Electric"), section 6 would preclude using "GE" in
the
> name of a derivative as that is a trademark of General Electric. So I
> think we have to be okay with two-letter names if we're okay with ASL,
> don't we? Similarly, calling a derivative work "stoneage", while it
> contains the consecutive letters "g" and "e", seems obviously
> acceptable under ASL 2.0 section 6.
>
> I understand the philosophical issue with restricting renaming
> generally. But I think if we go down that road, that represents a
> significant policy shift from our past practice.
OK, well I withdraw my objections to treating this as an acceptable
Fedora license for fonts. I reserve the right to complain about a
similar future non-font-oriented license. :-)
Since you both are having so much fun... here's my two cents ;)
I agree this is ok for Fedora, but I also understand Richard's initial
hesitation re: the naming issue.
I think the distinction is that
- the clause in Apache 2.0 is explicitly consistent with trademark law.
- whereas, this license sort of goes a step further and gives
instructions on how to change the name enough to avoid a "likelihood of
confusion" for the consumer (the standard for trademark infringement)
Stating you must rename a modified version (or derivative work) is
pretty common, but generally still considered free/open as it is merely
reflecting the reality of trademark law (at least that's they way I
think of it).
Explaining how to rename it - goes a step further, which could be seen
as too far, but in this case, it seems pretty reasonable.
I think the line gets crossed (and may be where Richard is reserving his
right to complain) when a license actually requires the use of a
specific name in a specific scenario, so-called "badgeware" licenses.
Pam Chestek did a great talk on this at FOSDEM 2014, if anyone is
interested :)
https://archive.fosdem.org/2014/schedule/event/trademark_licenses/
Cheers,
Jilayne