APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Matt Asay]

I'm afraid I need to correct this error.  When someone buys Alfresco (or
even when they don't), they get full access to the source code.  They get
100% rights to modify the source code.  They get 100% rights to redistribute
it.  They can fork it.  Nothing will stop them from doing this (except
Ajeet's preference not to have a logo on the application when he does).

That sounds like open source to me.  (Disclaimer #2:  I'm also on the OSI
board.)

What is in question is whether the OSI will approve attribution clauses.
But given the above, you might understand better why Zimbra, SocialText,
Alfresco, etc. feel that it's well within its rights to call what they do
"open source" until shown otherwise.

No one, incidentally, uses Alfresco blindly believing it's open source when
it's not.  They use Alfresco because it meets their needs, and the company's
website, readme files, etc. all clearly outline what is required of them.


> From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu>
> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:24:32 -0500
> To: Ajeet Narayan <ajeet.narayan at gmail.com>
> Cc: <license-discuss at opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
> 
>> It is obvious that many people may decide to use ALFRESCO just because
> it is presented wrongly
>> as an Open Source Software.
> 
> Unfortunately, those who popularized the term Open Source failed to
> protect it as a trademark; the same is true of "Free Software" (which
> was also a poor choice of terminology for the FSF's ideals).  Now, there
> is no way to enforce a particular meaning.  That is why "OSI Certified"
> (and its associated graphics) were trademarked.  So, if someone used OSI
> Certified to refer to a product that wasn't under an OSI-approved
> license, OSI could pressure (and eventually sue) them.  But they really
> can't do anything about an objectionable use of the phrase "open source".