> > Oooo, interest from a big company...
> >
> > If anyone else wants to handle this, be my guest. If not what shall
> > I tell him ? - i guess the answer is "Please feel free to redistribute
> > Apache for free (you may charge for support), but please do not
> > redistribute it under any other name. There will be a new license text
> > attached to Apache in a week or two, it basically says the above, but
> > you should probably wait to read it."
> >
> > anything else ?
> >
>
> Sounds like you've covered it. If this is something you don't
> want to do, let me know and I will contact him.
Mmm, things seem to be happening in an ad-hoc manner. Which is fine in
the short-term but probably a bad idea if we're trying to be consistant.
I wonder if people feel that now would be a good time to tighten things up
a little. At least to the extent of:
o adopting a more workable licence (Paul R's idea seems like
a start)
o formalising the group to the extent where we could at least be happy
that we're covering our asse[t]s for purposes of copyright and
trademarks (duh, wot they?).
o Ben L mentioned a low-overhead approach where we fake-up
a company just to hang the name on, but which doesn't
require us to wear suits or even have a CEO. Seemed to
be viable in the UK, but I'm unclear about the US equivalent.
[.trademarks in the US can only be 'owned' by US organisations,
same for UK. So for a 'global' approach there'd need to
be several such fake-ups].
o Knocking up a short faq/guideline doc detailing what the Apache 'licence'
really means so:
a) we all know what rules we're playing with
b) we can point people to it if they ask
Comments please.
Cheers,
Ay.
Andrew Wilson URL: http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/User/Andrew.Wilson/
Elsevier Science, Oxford Office: +44 01865 843155 Mobile: +44 0589 616144
> >
> > If anyone else wants to handle this, be my guest. If not what shall
> > I tell him ? - i guess the answer is "Please feel free to redistribute
> > Apache for free (you may charge for support), but please do not
> > redistribute it under any other name. There will be a new license text
> > attached to Apache in a week or two, it basically says the above, but
> > you should probably wait to read it."
> >
> > anything else ?
> >
>
> Sounds like you've covered it. If this is something you don't
> want to do, let me know and I will contact him.
Mmm, things seem to be happening in an ad-hoc manner. Which is fine in
the short-term but probably a bad idea if we're trying to be consistant.
I wonder if people feel that now would be a good time to tighten things up
a little. At least to the extent of:
o adopting a more workable licence (Paul R's idea seems like
a start)
o formalising the group to the extent where we could at least be happy
that we're covering our asse[t]s for purposes of copyright and
trademarks (duh, wot they?).
o Ben L mentioned a low-overhead approach where we fake-up
a company just to hang the name on, but which doesn't
require us to wear suits or even have a CEO. Seemed to
be viable in the UK, but I'm unclear about the US equivalent.
[.trademarks in the US can only be 'owned' by US organisations,
same for UK. So for a 'global' approach there'd need to
be several such fake-ups].
o Knocking up a short faq/guideline doc detailing what the Apache 'licence'
really means so:
a) we all know what rules we're playing with
b) we can point people to it if they ask
Comments please.
Cheers,
Ay.
Andrew Wilson URL: http://www.cm.cf.ac.uk/User/Andrew.Wilson/
Elsevier Science, Oxford Office: +44 01865 843155 Mobile: +44 0589 616144