APL license - What about the enforced logos?

[Matthew Flaschen]

Russ Nelson wrote:
> We
> tried to protect it as a trademark, however it is too descriptive.  

So, in other words, you tried and failed to trademark it.

> Yes, we can.  We can point out to the misuser that they are going to
> confuse their customers.  "Open Source" is a well-understood term.

Of course you can point it out, but strongly worded letters only go so
far.  Also, I don't think "open source" is that well-understood after
all; many people probably couldn't distinguish it from shared source or
gratisware.

> Claiming to have an open source product when you don't will mislead
> your customers.  Customers don't like it when you lie to them.

No, customers don't like it when they *find out* you have lied to them.
 I think most people are unaware of the OSI's role, and would never
consider the license list a final arbiter (if they even know the
software's license).

Matt 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/20061129/41d9c96a/attachment.sig>