OSI Logo - Terms of Use

David Woolley forums at david-woolley.me.uk
Sat Feb 16 14:53:31 UTC 2008

David Abrahams wrote:
> Now that Boost has an approved license, we'd like to use it on our website. 
> However, the requirement that we to link to the OSI's official image instead of
> duplicating it is meeting with some resistance on the grounds that it's a
> violation of privacy:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/170847/focus=170850

Given what I understand to be the reasons for the requirement, could I 
propose that one solution might be for OSI to permit people to 
application level proxy the http request for the image, so that there is 
no permanent storage of the image on the subject's site, but no 
information about the cient, except the time at which the image was 
fetched and the IP address of the proxying organisation, is passed to 
OSI.  (I.e. you give out a CGI URL (which on a good server may be 
indistinguishable from a static one) and the CGI issues an http request 
to OSI and you then forward the contents of the response).

Incidentally, if the image is cacheable, which I consider good, if 
uncommon, web server operating practice, OSI will only be getting a 
sample of requests and, if OSI agreed to the above suggestion, you could 
run the proxy locally and only re-validate the image when its cache 
lifetime expired.

Incidentally, whilst I think I see where your objections are coming 
from, they result from abuse of web technology; the actual technology 
works best if resources are not copied, but, rather, are deep linked.

PS if you are concerned about privacy, please don't give out URLs to 
forums that set persistent cookies.  There is no fundamental reason to 
use persistent cookies for forums, although I suspect many forum hosting 
services exist in order to be able to track people for advertising purposes.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list