Promotion of derived products, the Microsoft case (was: Scope of copyright on derivative works)

[Chris Travers]

On 9/29/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov [mailto:alexander.terekhov at gmail.com] wrote:
> > - Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
> > contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
> > this software without specific prior written permission.
>
> This kind of statement is exactly the typical restriction that I was
> speaking about the Microsoft's possible attempt to limit the use of its
> licence name, because it would indirectly reference Microsoft itself
> without
> permission for promoting a product distributed under the terms of one of
> the
> proposed Microsoft licences.


I don't see why this is a problem.  There is a difference between saying "We
chose the Microsoft Permissive License for our product" and saying
"Microsoft is endorsing our product."

This is there to keep people from using the organization names of
contributors to promote possibly inferior versions without prior
authorization (already a cause for action, iirc, but IANAL).

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070929/32360049/attachment.html>