4 ms·
Between the name, the abbreviation, and the suggested usage of "Apache + Commons Clause" for a proprietary offering, this "Commons Clause" project has severe pr
by rectang 8y ago
Between the name, the abbreviation, and the suggested usage of "Apache + Commons Clause" for a proprietary offering, this "Commons Clause" project has severe problems with deceptive messaging.
If it was unintentional it was incredibly foolish; if it was deliberate....
Either way it should be junked.
- paulddraper 8y agoApache + Commons...Apache Commons...how confusing can you be? https://commons.apache.org/ https://commons.apache.org/
- codeflo 8y agoThe plus sign suggests an additional right, as a dual license would offer, instead, it removes rights from the Apache license. I don't think that's an accident because judging from the website, this seems to be a very serious attempt to put a positive spin on "look but don't touch" style proprietary licensing schemes. Fuck this.
- AstralStorm 8y agoIn other words, it is no longer Apache license and it is NOT ALLOWED to use Apache Software Foundation trademark Apache. Call it Indian license or what not. This is unlike GPL which allows the use of the name as long as the clauses are not restrictive.
- riffraff 8y agohow can extra clauses not be restrictive? I mean, if they don't add new restrictions, what do they do?
- beaner 8y agoI guess a clause could specify exemptions to previous clauses.
- codeflo 8y agoExactly. This used to be quite common, see for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
- toyg 8y agoRemove restrictions? For example, the BSD license requires attribution, so you could have an extra clause that basically says "attribution is not required anywhere".
- christefano 8y ago> Call it Indian license or what not. Come on, really? I'm sure you could have picked a less offensive example than "Indian license".