FOR APPROVAL: WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License 1.0

Nicholas Goodman ngoodman at
Thu Nov 16 07:49:22 UTC 2006

> 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.

If OSI doesn't consider the proxy license i submitted it seems unlikely
the community at large will get the benefit of vetting to a commonly
used "open source" license.  

> 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.

I've posted an entirely opinionated blog on the matter (disclaimer).
Ajeet (and list) check out the image I created to demonstrate what open
source applications would look like if UI attribution license were the
norm.  It's good for a laugh, if it weren't an important issue.
(image of open source application with UI attribution licenses:

Not an assessment of the license to OSD (that *would* be the OSI
approval process of WPL if allowed) but just to open source norms.

Kind Regards,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list