APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Nicholas Goodman]

There are several licenses which use this Exhibit B all claiming to be
open source companies, products, etc.  None of them have submitted their
licenses for approval to my knowledge.  Is it possible to submit their
license on their behalf so there can be an actual determination?

If not, can I submit my own license?  Ie, just like they all use the
same Exhibit B template can I submit a license "ForcedAttributionCompany
Public License" with the Exhibit B for determination? 

IMHO, they are not.  There is a very broad audience now buying into
these "apps" as open source; these additions to the open source
community are not as educated as those on the infrastructure side.  It
seems the very people that could use an OSI service most (newbie open
source USERs) would benefit greatly from a determination from OSI on the
Exhibit B's of the world.

Please let me know if I can prepare a license for submission
"ForcedAttributionCompany Public License."  I know it is strange to
submit a license with an expectation it be rejected but the outcome
remains just as important (determining if Exhibit B meets OSD or not).

Kind Regards,
Nick

On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 21:41 +0000, David Woolley wrote:

> > 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.

-- 
Nicholas Goodman
Director of Business Intelligence Solutions
Pentaho (http://www.pentaho.org)
The Open Source Business Intelligence Company
+1 206 953-3860 (mobile)
http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog (blog)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061113/281db535/attachment.html>