<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">Is there any OSI-approved license that provides injunctive relief to an original author in the situation of a bad actor creating a damaging derivative? To figure this out, I’ve been researching and trying to sort out:</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">1) which existing OSI-approved licenses impose derivative requirements (e.g., such that others must rename, that changes must be itemized, etc) and,</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">2) whether such a requirement makes the license de facto GPL/LGPL-incompatible?</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">For #1, I know CDDL has a required notice of authorship of modifications but didn’t see anything else at least amongst the popular licenses. I know that license+trademark protection is the primary method for several notable open source products (e.g., Firefox), but getting an injunction solely on failing to announce modifications seems weak. </span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">I think the answer to #2 is “probably”, as anything that would hold up in court would likely be an additional requirement, forbidden by the GNUs, but would appreciate any insights.</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br class=""></span><div class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">The backdrop for this is an author reasonably going to court and obtaining injunctive relief should some bad actor distribute a derivative that was specifically designed to cause some surreptitious harm to the original author. Not just a hypothetical case.</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">Consider governmental actors where the outcome is political or newsworthy in nature. State Agency embraces open source, releases “State Agency's Super Something Yellow”. Bad actor modifies and gets a bad SASSY into the marketplace. Is there anything outside of trademark registration that would help State Agency save face and/or get injunctive relief more easily?</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">Cheers!</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class="">Sean</span><div class=""><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 11px;" class=""><br class=""></span></div></div></body></html>