APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[David Woolley]

> misunderstood by Dave in the UK):  we should not try to read intentions into
> a license, because 10 years from now we won't have any insight into the
> intentions - we'll just be left with the license.  We therefore need to look

But intentions will be read into the licence if it is ever legally 
challenged, and, as far as I can see, the only real protection is to 
make the licence as explicit as possible.  One common technique that 
you might want to discuss with your lawyer, is to include:  For the 
avoidance of doubt this just over the border case is not permitted.  That
helps makes it clear that you didn't just overlook the case, and users cannot
apply "if any" logic.  (Incidentally, the GPL has material explaining
the intent outside the formal legal code, but as part of the immutable
licence document.)

Incidentally, we've been talking about what people tend to consider 
less capable technology, but it is possible that in future, the preferred
technology for graphical displays will return to the use of hardware
directly capable of rendering vector graphics and that the concept of
a device pixel will no longer be meaningful.  (I think that a move
to pure vector formats for the transmission of the display content
could happen at almost any time; it is probably already happening
in the mobile world, although a literal interpretation of your
logo requirements would probably prevent the use on mobile devices
even with bitmap images.)

Thinking of pixels, was your intention to mean device pixel or CSS pixel.
These are not the same, although the situation is degenerate for common
current visual display resolutions.  I think you probably meant CSS
pixels, but device pixel is probably rather more widely understood,
and might be what would be selected given your intention that a narrow
reading should be used.  You need to define that term if you don't want
people to guess at your intentions.