APL license - What about the enforced logos?

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Tue Nov 7 22:15:00 UTC 2006

Nothing wrong with being picky, but let's not pretend the law is a

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
> Ajeet Narayan wrote:

> >"Supplied free of charge with no support, no certification, no
> >maintenance, no warranty and no indemnity by Alfresco Software, Inc
> >or its certified partners."
> This can be read as requiring that the program itself is provided free
> of charge....

I don't think that's a fair reading of the language in context.  It
seems to me that the plain intent is to state that the original codebase
from Alfresco was gratis, ergo the lack of warranty, etc.  As usual, the
relevant test is how a judge would likely rule, and I'm pretty sure
that's abundantly clear, here.  (Infelicity of language doesn't make
something proprietary, or quote a number of OSI-certified licences would
be in trouble.)

> > (iii) the copyright notice in the same form as the latest
> > version of the Covered Code distributed by Alfresco Software, Inc. at
> > the time of distribution of such copy.
> This makes it difficult for downstream contributors to protect their
> modifications; it is probably also false designation of origin (and thus
> prosecutable under the Latham Act).

(Sorry, I don't get this.  And, yes, I am familiar with trademark law.)

> > In addition, the "Alfresco Community" logo and vendor disclaimer
> > must be visible to all users and be located at the very bottom left
> > of each user interface screen.
> This requires there be a GUI!

I believe a judge would consider the words "if any" to be clearly

> > When users click on the "
> > Alfresco Community " logo it must direct them back to
> > http://www.alfresco.com <http://www.alfresco.com/>.
> This requires that HTTP is available....

I believe a judge would consider the words "if applicable" to be
clearly implied.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list