[reSIProcate] vocal licence is not gpl compatible

[Scott Zuk]

On February 9, 2005 11:33 am, Anatoly Yakovenko wrote:
> I don't know if anyone has bugged you about this yet, but the VOCAL
> licence is not gpl compatible due to the 4th clause in that licence.
>
> * 4. Products derived from this software may not be called "VOCAL", nor
>  *    may "VOCAL" appear in their name, without prior written
>  *    permission of Vovida Networks, Inc.
>
> You dont actually need to have that clause in the licence if Vovida
> Networks owns the trademark VOCAL.  If you guys really like the VOCAL
> licence is there any chance to duel licencing the library under a more
> GPL happy licence?

FWIW, I got a reply from licensing at fsf.org and this clause is GPL 
incompatible.  If the clause exists for trademark purposes, the trademark 
clause of the Apache 2.0 license [1] which states

"Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file."

can be used instead to make the license compatible with the GPL.

[1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt

Regards,
~Scott