FOR APPROVAL: WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License 1.0

[Matthew Flaschen]

Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> If there was an application that met the conditions above

This already distinguishes the GPL from the APL/WACPL .  Only modified
versions of applications that print these announcements have to print
them.  Moreover, if your modified version isn't interactive, you don't
have to print anything.  The APL grants no such immunities.  Moreover,
the GPL does not specify how it should be printed.  Where the WACPL says
"the dimensions of the " WhizbangApplicationCompany Community " logo
must be at least 176 x 26 pixels." and "When users click on the "
WhizbangApplicationCompany Community " logo it must direct them back to
http://www.WhizbangApplicationCompany.com.", the GPL says "print or
display."  The main reason I feel the APL isn't compliant is that it
requires a GUI, mouse, network, and even HTTP; the GPL doesn't require
ANYTHING.  Reliance on a particular technology violates OSD #10.

> the above could be interpreted as requiring
> the publication of a copyright notice listing all 50 different holders
> and their licenses.

This is onerous, but it still only has to be shown on startup.  The
APL/WACPL requires it on the "very bottom left of EACH user interface
screen." [emphasis added].  This is much more annoying, but more
importantly, it relies on a GUI in violation of OSD #10.

> It seems a high bar to set that if an otherwise compliant candidate
> license creates simply burdensome conditions later on

It's not burdensome conditions per se, but burdensome conditions that
violate the OSD.

Matthew Flaschen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20061116/d449a5dc/attachment.sig>