request for approval of APOSSL

dave sag dave.sag at
Tue Mar 5 19:33:56 UTC 2002

At 1:47 PM -0500 5/3/02, John Cowan wrote:
>dave sag wrote:
>>Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should 
>>you never obtain written permission, you never need endorse 
># 4. The names "Pronoic", or "" must be used to endorse and
>#   promote products derived from this software before obtaining
>#   written permission.
>Suppose that I have created a derivative program and have not asked for
>written permission.  Then I must use your terms to endorse and promote
>my program, although under clause 5 they cannot appear in its name.

No. There is no requirement to use the term pronoic unless you get 
written permission to do so.  If you do use our company name or url 
you must get our permission. that is fair i would say.  It keeps 
things clear in the longer term.  If you wish to use our company name 
or url you must ask, and by asking you must use the term.  This binds 
the term to our name without sacrificing the essence of the term and 
without impinging on the rights of anyone interested in using this 

When I say

   Products derived from this software will always be "pronoic"

I mean that they will be in their very nature pronoic.  If you as a 
developer choose to adopt this licence you will only be likely to do 
so if you agree in general with the ethos of the developers of other 
pronoic software.  Thus the sentence is self fulfilling.

>It sounds like the permission I would want is the permission *not*
>to use these terms.

Most would, but not us, and not, we are guessing a proportion of the 
developer community.


license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list