APL license - What about the enforced logos?

Ben Tilly btilly at gmail.com
Wed Nov 15 00:27:28 UTC 2006

On 11/14/06, Matt Asay <mjasay at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I just glanced at all three licenses.  You're right that Zimbra has an
attribution clause similar to Alfresco.  But SocialText does not.

Don't believe me?  Re-read it.  Their requirement is that you have to
provide a link to download the source-code for whatever you're
running.  See http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?why_the_appendix
for the exact wording.

While the term isn't perfectly phrased, it is an attempt to do the
same thing that the GPL does in requiring source to be published.
Only updated for the modern reality of people using applications that
are never distributed to them.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list