Request for Comment http://www.buni.org/mediawiki/index.php/GAP_Against

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):

> Rick Moen is the most prominent representative of those who believe
> that OSD #6 should be interpreted as forbidding restrictions whose
> effect is to render code unpalatable for certain purposes....

This fundamentally misrepresents what I said.  Thus, I find myself in
the undesired position of clarifying yet again.

As a reminder, in that subthread, at that time we were discussing
MuleSource's MPL 1.1 + "Exhibit B" licence -- not GAP.  I pointed out
that the licensor's _explicitly_ avowed intent (in its Exhibit B clause)
is to make usage of the covered code so impractical for third-party
commercial users that they would be driven to purchase separate,
different commercial-use licences for any such usage models.

I pointed out that OSD#6 is, as clarified by among other things the
posted rationale in the OSD Web text, specifically aimed against
licences that impair usage in commerce.

Plainly, not all conceivable mandatory-advertising clauses would be
fairly interpreted as likely to impair use in commerce.  (I suggested
one such possible clause.)  Plainly, MuleSource seeks explcitly to do
so:  The sponsoring firm has openly admitted that precise intent.

Concerning GAP in distinction to MuleSource's "Exhibit B", I pointed out
that a licensor invoking its wording...

   a display of the same size as found in the [original code] released by
   the original licensor

...could require all derivative works to sport a 500-point logo +
company name + URL display, specifically to make commercial use
impractical.  I.e., the lack of any limit on size and promience
(completely aside from the OSD#10 issue) provides a method for licensor
to effectively prevent competing commercial use.

You believe that doesn't contravene OSD#6 because commercial competitors
merely don't WANT a 500-point competitor's logo, not that they CAN'T --
an argument I consider self-parodying and make no further comment.


> However one gets the same effect from taking any pair of incompatible
> licenses and joining them together.

This, however, is not a joining of two codebases under incompatible
licences at all, but rather a defect in a derivative work formed
entirely from code all under _one_ licence -- so your comment is
non-sequitur.


I'm disappointed but not surprised that I'm having to repeat myself on
this matter yet again.  Please do not make necessary yet more iterations.
Thank you.