FOR APPROVAL: WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License 1.0

David Woolley david at
Thu Nov 16 00:23:03 UTC 2006

* Section 2.2. The Source Code version of Covered Code may be distributed
* only under the terms of this License or a future version of this License
* released under Section 6.1, and You must include a copy of this License
* with every copy of the Source Code You distribute. You may not offer or
* impose any terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts
* the applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights
* hereunder. However, You may include an additional document offering the
* additional rights described in Section 3.5.
> Code governed by this License), You must (a) rename Your license so that
> the phrases ''WhizbangApplicationCompany'', ''APL'' or any confusingly

Bad templatisation.  I think there was another example that I pruned

> similar phrase do not appear in your license (except to note that your
>       This License represents the complete agreement concerning
* subject matter hereof. If any provision of this License is held to be
> Additional Terms applicable to the WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License.

To me this appears to being added after the licence was declared the
complete agreement, and, as such would not be able to take rights away.
However I guess that this bad drafting would be overlooked.  There is a 
definite switch from the careful wording of the MPL part to this part.

> II. WhizbangApplicationCompany and logo.
> This License does not grant any rights to use the trademarks
* "WhizbangApplicationCompany" and the "WhizbangApplicationCompany" logos
* even if such marks are included in the Original Code or Modifications.

It seems to me that the right *is* granted to use their Community logo.  One
would also assume that they have granted the right to use any logo that
is actually sent to the browser by the unmodified code, at least in 
relation to the use of the unmodified code.

> However, in addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of
* the Covered Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must,
* as a form of attribution of the original author, include on each user
* interface screen (i) the " WhizbangApplicationCompany Community" logo,

The concept of a user interface screen is really a pre-web concept.  In
a web application, you cannot enforce this because the user can turn
off images or they may be suppressed by proxies.  If the FSF interpretation
of US law is correct, you cannot impose restrictions on use, so even
an application service provide could use a proxy to suppress or 
substitute the image.  If the software uses a standard web server
for to serve the image, even that could be configured to supply a 
different one.

Although I doubt that there would be any problem in having this
interpreted in a realistic way, it would be better to specify something
that is enforceable in the first place.

* (ii) the vendor disclaimer “Supplied free of charge with no support,
* no certification, no maintenance, no warranty and no indemnity by
* WhizbangApplicationCompany Software, Inc or its certified partners. Click
* here for support. And certified Versions” and (iii) the copyright notice

Technology dependence already noted by various people.

* in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed
* by WhizbangApplicationCompany Software, Inc. at the time of distribution
* of such copy. In addition, the "WhizbangApplicationCompany Community"

A copyright notice is basically:

Copyright (c) Yoyodyne Corporation 2999

There doesn't seem to be much scope for varying the form, which leaves
one with only the copyright owner and year of first publication defining
the form of the notice.  However you cannot deny the right of the other
copyright owners to be recognized and you cannot misrepresent the year
of first publication.  It therefore seems to me that it is void.  It
may also conflict with the requirements on notices in the main part of
the licence.

If it really means the licence terms, it definitely conflicts with the
main licence, and, in any case, the open source community doesn't like
revokable licenses (the permission to redistribute is at risk).

* logo and vendor disclaimer must be visible to all users and be located

This may well conflict with disability discrimination legislation.

* at the very bottom left of each user interface screen. Notwithstanding

What about the Arabic and Hebrew ports?

* the above, the dimensions of the " WhizbangApplicationCompany Community
* " logo must be at least 176 x 26 pixels. When users click on the

This precludes use on many mobile devices.  Also, what constitutes
a pixel: on a very high resolution display; on a display that is
fundamentally vector in nature; when transmitting the image using
fundamentally vector means.

What is meant by the logo in this case.  If it is specific raster
bitmap, then identify it.  If it is the basic design, then it is
almost certainly vector in design, so there are situations where 
the concept of a device pixel may never be meaningful.

* " WhizbangApplicationCompany Community " logo it must direct

"Click" is a sloppy word.  I will probably be interpreted as including
pressing enter, tapping the screen, saying the right word, moving
your eyes appropriately, etc., but it would be better to use a
term that was truly generic.

* them back to When

This is nice and fuzzy.  It looks as though there is no need to 
actually show the page, which is probably a good thing if the user
is working offline; you can simply inform the user of the URL.  Actually
this may solve the link rot problem.  However I don't think it was
intended to be interpreted as merely directing them, but it was 
intended that the browser be forced to load and display that page.

* users click on the vendor disclaimer it must direct them to
*  In addition, the copyright
* notice must remain visible to all users at all times at the bottom of
* the user interface screen. When users click on the copyright notice,
* it must direct them back to

As above both with respect to offline use and link rot and the accessibility

More information about the License-discuss mailing list