FOR APPROVAL: WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License 1.0

Ajeet Narayan ajeet.narayan at
Thu Nov 16 07:35:38 UTC 2006

Dear all,

unless such a proxy submission contradicts the way in which the OSI
board operates, it would be very interesting to hear the board's
official verdict.

At this point, I would like to present two use-cases for consideration.

Use-Case 1:
Let's say I develop an application offering 50 different
functionalities, 5 of them using third-party software under
WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License (aka APL-like license). Can
you please imagine my user interface? I would have to have 5 (!) lines
of text and logos at the end of each of my screens with links back to
the third-party software authors. I haven't seen any software's
graphical user interface looking so "funny" and I hope OSI won't
enforce us going this way by approving such a license.

Use-Case 2:
Let's say a third-party software under the WhizbangApplicationCompany
Public License (aka APL-like license) has a server component and a
web-client component. Obviously, the text and logos are displayed when
one is using the third party author's original web-client component
(the server component only offers an API). If I develop my own
web-client component using just originally developed source code in
order to access the server component do I still need to add the text
and logos of the third-party author in _my_own_ software? I'm not
using/re-using a single line of the third-party software for my client
and it has been fully developed with my own resources and budget. Why
should I have such an "advertisement" for the third-party author in my
own application? Do you image SUN going for Java with a WPL/APL? Each
time we had to deploy a Java-based application we would be enforced to
have a footer saying "Supplied free of charge with no support, no
certification, no maintenance, no warranty and no indemnity by SUN or
its certified partners. Click here for support and certified
Versions". This is not only totally inapplicable but it enforces my
company to admit that the software we are creating (which may have
little to do with the third-party component per se) is provided for
free (!), with no maintenance (!), no guarantee (!) etc. Well,
obviously my company does provide maintenance, guarantee etc. – maybe
in even better financial or other terms than the third party software
author – and this is probably why a particular client has chosen us
instead of the third party software author.

I'm afraid WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License (aka APL-like
license) has nothing to do with the spirit of OSS and its purpose, as
another person previously commented on this list, is only to take
advantage of the open source tag in order to generate publicity so
that commercial version and services can be sold.

Looking forward to the board's decision.

thanks for your time.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list