License Committee Report for September 2008
nelson at crynwr.com
Sun Nov 2 16:47:26 UTC 2008
Wang Donglin writes:
> Unfortunately, your suggestion can not wok. It requires that the trademark
> has become a famous brand and the end users only use the software with this
> brand, therefore the modified version provider need this brand. But UOML is
> not in this case.
It is impossible to get to the top of Everest, because in order to get
to the top of Everest, you must be one step short of the top of
Everest. Since it's impossible to get to the top of Everest, it's
practically impossible to get one step short of the top of Everest.
Since it's practically impossible to get one step short, one may as
well not try.
If you project failure, then you WILL fail.
> Is there any other option?
Yes, there are several options.
You can use the Artistic License, which requires that you rename the
software if you modify it.
You can license under the BSD license if the distributed software
complies with the UOML test suite, and under the GPL otherwise.
You can have a web page which lists all software that implements UOML
correctly, and which lists all software that claims to implement UOML
but which doesn't pass the test suite.
> Do you know this kind of rule(Open Source Definition) will prevent
> potential contributer like us to participate the open source
That's okay. We'll still love you anyway.
In my religion (Quakerism) you are expect to adhere to a certain code
of conduct. If you do, you may apply for membership. If you have
gotten it, and misbehave, you may be read out of the meeting. You can
still attend meeting, but you are no longer a member of the meeting.
So it is with Open Source. We have rules here.
--my blog is at http://blog.russnelson.com | Delegislation is a slippery
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | slope to prosperity.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 | Fewer laws, more freedom.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog | (Not a GOP supporter).
More information about the License-review