For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License

[Chris Travers]

On 10/7/07, David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk> wrote:
>
> Rick Moen wrote:
>
> > circumstances putting a sticker on a retail package saying "Microsoft
> > Public Licensed", that form of diction just not being normal, nor the
>
> It is very normal for marketing people.  Probably with a star around it
> as a feature to be quickly spotted on the shelves.



I don;t know.  Such marketeers should have their heads examined.  It doesn't
read well, could mean any of a number of things, etc.

I could see any of the following (clearer) statements:
* Under the Microsoft Public Licnese
* Includes the Microsoft Public License
* Source Available! (Microsoft Public License)
* Shared Source (Microsoft Public License)
* Open Source (Microsoft Public License)


If nothing else, this is aproblem for the company's lawyers, not for the
OSI.

> described action.  Putting "Released under the terms of the Microsoft
> > Public License" would be rather more normal and likely.
>
> Who would ensure that text, required by the lawyers, like this was in as
> small print as possible (and it would be printed on the main packaging,
> not a sticker).  Stickers are a marketing device for highlighting
> selling points.
>


"Microsoft" has a significance in the public mind that, say  "Mozilla"
> doesn't have, so I think this is a real issue in terms of usability of
> the licence.


My take on this is similar to Ricks.   I guess I would ask you if the advice
of company legal counsel would be insufficient to resolve/prevent these
problems.

Now, speaking as someone who has to do my own marketing, "Microsoft Public
Licensed" is something I cannot imagine even the worst marketing droids
doing and if they do, the legal department is there to stop them.  More
professional marketing would look like:
"(bold text: UNDER THE) (flashy sticker: Microsoft Public License)."  It is
clear, communicates the message, etc.

This is even if the license release was considered a major marketing point
which it probably wouldn't be.

After all, what does "MIcrosoft Public Licensed" mean?  Does it mean that
Microsoft has obtained a "Public License" whatever that means?  Or does it
mean that Microsoft bought the rights to it and released it to the public?
Yes, that would be confusing and a valid concern but it is a valid concern
because of consumer confusion issues as much as anything else.

Speaking to Microsoft:  One opportunity Microsoft might have out of this
might be to develop a logo program for certifying that applications are
releasing code under these liceses in return for allowing them to use a logo
which would clearly communicate this in commercial sales.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20071008/dea748b5/attachment.html>