APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Matt Asay (mjasay at gmail.com):

> ASAY:  This would be an incorrect inference.  The OSI has made no official
> (or unofficial) decision on Alfresco or any other pixel-based attribution
> requirement.  It is therefore incorrect to say that these licenses are not
> valid.  They simply haven't been evaluated yet.

As explicated by your posting of Monday, that "logo" clause very clearly
contravenes OSD#10.  Take Ben Tilly's word, or mine, or hang tough
waiting for the Board to speak; you're still missing the open source
target on those grounds alone.

> ASAY:  You need to understand that according to Alfresco, Zimbra, etc.
> they are fully complying with the Open Source Definition today.

It's at best poor form to claim to be open source when your licence
hasn't been OSI-approved.  Will you at least commit to remove that claim
if your application is declined?

> Keep in mind what I said before (and which was apparently
> 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.

Whether we should or not, it's important to realise that judges do.
That is why legislative history matters, for example.

-- 
Cheers,
Rick Moen                     Emacs is a decent operating system,
rick at linuxmafia.com           but it still lacks a good text editor.