APL license - What about the enforced logos?

Matthew Flaschen matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu
Wed Nov 8 03:39:19 UTC 2006

What you're really saying is that they're mandating a GUI, but a court
won't uphold it.  You may be right there, but then I think a court would
never uphold a violation of OSD #10.  Does that mean we should nullify
that point?

Matthew Flaschen

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
>> First of all, OSI is approving licenses for software-oriented
>> commentators and software developers, so they should be making licenses
>> these people can understand.
> I'm all in favour of human-comprehensible licensing and avoidance of
> ambiguity, too, but c'mon:  Saying "you've mandated a GUI" just because
> a licence speaks of a logo and disclaimer to include on the opening
> display is just daft.  It's just manifestly untrue, and all that's
> required to read such licences correctly is a bit of common sense about
> how the law gets actually applied by real judges in real courtrooms.
> Which I therefore suggest.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061107/ba3c5343/attachment.sig>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list