OSI certification mark and BSD licence

[John Cowan]

Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:

> Acuatlly, John, it is exactly the opposite.  Licenses are approved,
> software is certified if it is distributed under an approved license.
> Trademark law does not allow a trademark on a license, because it is
> neither goods nor services. 

Sorry, yes, that's what I meant.  The exact quote:

	You may use the OSI Certified mark on any software that is
	distributed under an OSI-approved license.

This needs to be changed to:

	You may use the OSI Certified mark on any software that is
	distributed under an OSI-approved license, provided you also
	make source code available under the terms of clause 2 of the OSD.

> I acknowledge the problem presented by Francis Hunt's question.  That is
> one reason the Academic Free License, that is intended to replace the
> BSD license, contains an explicit statement of the requirement to
> publish source code.  

YAAL, but what's the source of Licensor's enforceable obligation, seeing
that Licensee need not accept the AFL merely to use the software?
I smell a nudum pactum.

(To which the response is:  "I feel a draft." :-) )

-- 
And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening
beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from
inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding
and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic
tenebrous ultimate gods --  the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul
is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan|jcowan at reutershealth.com|ccil.org/~cowan
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3