APL license - What about the enforced logos?

David Woolley david at djwhome.demon.co.uk
Sun Nov 12 19:30:47 UTC 2006

> Not allowing a property holder to indicate his/her property would be,
> to be blunt, mildly insane and clearly contrary to public policy and
> the general intent of copyright law.  Why would you think a judge would
> interpret the licence that way, or, if he/she did so, hold it to be
> enforceable?  

I wouldn't.  I'm saying that clause is bad because it may mislead
a recipient to believe so, but is probably completely void.

> > Another problem is that it would reset the copyright date, which,
> > as the copyright is corporate, would purport to extend the life of
> > Alfresco's copyright.
> I confess I am sadly ignorant of any mechanism other than statute by 
> which copyright date might be 'reset'.

The copyright date in the above is the date that appears in the copyright
notice - that's very easy to change with a text editor, although I
agree it has no legal effect.  Again the point I am making is that the
licence is asking for something to be done that is misleading and almost
certainly void.

The point that is being made is that the licence is very badly drafted but
a naive redistributor may not realise that it is asking for things that
cannot legally be done.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list