APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Matt Asay 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.

That alone is worth nothing, as Microsoft "Shared Source" plainly
demonstrates.

> They get 100% rights to modify the source code.

That's untrue.  If I can't create a command-line version of your program
(or a command-line program that uses parts of your program), that's
limiting my right to modify.

> 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.

Again, you are well within your right to call it "open source".  Whether
that's correct is debatable.  I would steer clear of calling it
OSI-certified, or implying that it is.

> 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.

Agreed, but you're probably getting some good publicity from the "open
source" phrase.

Matt

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061114/9cd936be/attachment.sig>