APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
> Rick Moen wrote:
> > Quoting David Woolley (david at djwhome.demon.co.uk):
> > 
> >> I think it is also an ad hominem and an obscure one at that.
> > 
> > Apologies for any excessive erudition.
> 
> Ad hominem attacks usually aren't considered erudite.

If you're going to use terms from formal rhetoric, you should consider
getting it right, for starters.  'Argumentum ad hominem' is an appeal
seeking to persuade listeners to disregard the merits of an
interlocutor's arguments, on grounds solely of his/her personal
qualities, _where_ those personal qualities are not actually germane to
the line of argument.  Thus it is a variety of non sequitur.

In this case, I was neither wishing to impugn Mr Wooley personally nor 
(specifically) to urge disregarding of his argument on grounds of
whatever personal qualities he might have.  In point of fact, I cannot
find where I or anyone else spoke of such personal traits of his (if any), 
which is hardly surprising since I doubt most of us know him.

If _you_ are postulating that he's one of 'the Asperger's poster
children so famously prominent among us', then _you_ might wish to chat
with him about 'ad hominem attacks'[sic].  (Anyone who finds that shoe
to fit and wants to mention wearing it, be my guest.)

Anyway, the erudition can just come as a pleasant surprise to you, then.

> > Actually, I'm suggesting that members of this mailing list, including
> > but not limited to Mr Woolsey, should not raise objections to licences
> > that posit judges unable or unwilling to read with, and intelligently
> > apply, context.  Licences are a matter of law, not compiler design.  
> > 
> 
> What I've been positing has nothing to do with judges.

Oh really?  I could have sworn that what you posted concerned a licence,
and specifically its legal effect.
 
> You seem to forget that regular laypeople must read, understand, and
> correctly interpret licenses.

No, my memory is remarkably intact, and capable of pulling off some
astonishing feats.  For example, it just fetched from long-term storage
the particular claim I _actually_ was addressing some days ago, which
had a great deal to do with judges.  Can you recall it?  It was from one
'Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu)', which could have been
you or perhaps someone else with the same posting address.  (One does
not wish to presume.)  Anyway, on the assumption that your memory might
need some assistance, here it is:

  > > 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!

It does not, of course, '_require_ there be a GUI', because the law is
interpreted by judges, and not by particularly literal-minded and
context-challenged computerists.

Now, I prefer licences to be clear, too -- and would certainly have
agreed with you if you'd said "That section is badly written and should
be rephrased, in that its language suggests that derivative works must
be graphical, which is probably not your intent and would violate
OSD#10" if read that way.  But you didn't:  You made a rather ludicrous
claim about what the licence _actually requires_, that was quite wrong.

-- 
Cheers,           "I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate
Rick Moen         those who do.  And, for the people who like country music,
rick at linuxmafia.com         denigrate means 'put down'."      -- Bob Newhart