request for approval of APOSSL

phil hunt philh at
Wed Mar 6 20:48:35 UTC 2002

On Tuesday 05 March 2002  5:36 pm, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 12:29:01PM -0500, Forrest J Cavalier III wrote:
> > > Clause 4 does NOT require promition of derivatives at all. Should
> > > you never obtain written permission, you never need endorse
> > > anything.
> >
> > 4. The names "Pronoic", or "" must be used to endorse and
> >     promote products derived from this software before obtaining
> >     written permission.
> >
> > You argue that the clause means "must be used WHEN endorsing and
> > promoting".  My interpretation, on the other hand, is that as written
> > it compels you to endorse and promote products.
> >
> > What interpretation do others make?
> I agree with your interpretation.
> The text states clearly that you MUST use it, unless you get permission
> for not using it.

That is my take on what it means, too. As for clause 5, I have no
idea what that is meant to mean, in terms of the behaviour it requires
from a person licensing the software.

IMO this license needs to be more clearly written.

<"><"><"> Philip Hunt <philh at> <"><"><">
"I would guess that he really believes whatever is politically 
advantageous for him to believe." 
                        -- Alison Brooks, referring to Michael
                              Portillo, on soc.history.what-if
license-discuss archive is at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list