On Fri, Nov 12, 2021 at 11:52 AM Jilayne Lovejoy <jlovejoy(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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:
>> I understand the philosophical issue with restricting
>> 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).
As I see it, there are plausibly-FLOSS licenses that attempt to
concerns that have been traditionally associated with trademark law.
This is not categorically problematic. For example the OSD says "The
license may require derived works to carry a different name or version
number from the original software" and broadly speaking that seems to
be a correct distillation of how the community has looked at this
issue. But the question for me is how far or how much further can such
a license provision go than what we assume is the background trademark
law default for there to be a concern that the license is now too
restrictive to be considered free/open source. I don't believe there
is *no* such point at which a line is crossed.
I think what makes me accept this license with some misgivings is (a)
Ben's interpretation which is narrower than the one I initially had,
and (b) it's a font license and there's a mostly unacknowledged lower
standard applied to font licenses. So if this same provision appeared
in a software license I am not sure it should be acceptable.