W3C and GPL compatibility (was Re: Discussion: ADPL)

[Forrest J. Cavalier III]

> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote:
> 
> > There are two ways that I see trademark clauses written
> > in licenses.  As I read the GPL, trademark protection clauses
> > as a condition of license are not GPL compatible.  But
> > trademark warning statements along the lines of "Nothing in this license
> > gives you...." don't seem to impose a further restriction, and therefore are
> > GPL compatible, in my understanding.
> >
> 
> That's also the message I'm getting from the FSF at the moment
> (more specifically, from Bradley M. Kuhn).
> 

(Thanks for confirming that.  FSF licensing answers must be swamped,
based on delayed responses to items I submitted in the last month.)

That FSF position might explain the W3C license being OK.

The W3C is a pretty unique license, because the only conditions it
seems to impose are propagating the license and notice (including
the trademark statement.), It doesn't make compliance with the
statement a condition for permission to use the software.

That seems like a strategy which could be abused.  Suppose I tacked
a notice onto the W3C license:
   "The copyright holders expect payment of $50.00 from you to
    <name> at <address.>"

Wouldn't that still be GPL compatible and OSD compliant, since
it expresses an expectation of payment.  It doesn't require it.

I wonder what kind of revenue stream it would create.

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3