APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[David Woolley]

> APL contains the attached (below) Exhibit B. I have three questions if I may:
> a) Could you please let us know if such Exhibit B is compliant with MPL1.1?

I think you need a lawyer, or at least the author of the MPL, to
answer that.

> b) Is APL a valid Open Source license (I cannot find any reference in
> OpenSource.org)?

It wouldn't have got through in the last few years without a lot
of obvious negative comment, so I don't think it is approved.
Note that the only official purpose for this list is obtaining
such approval, and that is best done by a request by the author
of the licence terms.

> c) Can a Contributor force the User of an Open Source license to
> display such a message on each and every screen of all his GUIs?
> Wouldn't it be enough to refer to it in the Source Code and in the
> About box?

The BSD licence with the advertising clause is open source, so I don't
think there is any absolute bar.  However, such a licence would be
incompatible with anything more restrictive than a BSD licence, so 
I would expect it to be shunned by the open source community.

Generally people want licences that allow one to extract code and
use it in other contexts, e.g. ones in which there is no rastererised
user interface.

> Versions" and (iii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest
> version of the Covered Code distributed by Alfresco Software, Inc. at

I doubt that they mean copyright notice.  The copyright notice tends
to be, at least in part, a property of a specific version (I guess
it could vary if the copyright ownership was assigned).  I wonder if
they mean the licence terms?

IANAL, so TINLA.