Subject: Re: FOR APPROVAL: WhizbangApplicationCompany Public License 1.0
From: Nicholas Goodman <ngoodman@bayontechnologies.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:13:07 -0800
Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:13:07 -0800
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:50 -0500, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> display."  The main reason I feel the APL isn't compliant is that it
> requires a GUI, mouse, network, and even HTTP; the GPL doesn't require
> ANYTHING.  Reliance on a particular technology violates OSD #10.


I've heard this several times GUI required, but IMHO I think it's far
easier.  I don't think the WPL meets OSD #1.

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away
the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

It's clever, but it ties the use of the software to permission to use
the trademark, yes?  Exhibit B basically says 
a) you must include our trademark on each UI screen.
and
b) you have no right to use our trademark.

Is it correct to assume that the trademark holder (ie, almost certainly
the WPL copyright holder) can charge a royalty, fee, or otherwise
prohibit the distribution of an aggregate software if their trademark is
being used?  ie, CentOS have had to remove trademark notices to
distribute their downstream product because of this very reason.  

Doesn't this tie use of the product to the right (not granted) to use
the trademark (controlled outside the license by tm holder)?

Anyhow who knows more about this than me (I'm guess probably 95% of this
email list) care to weigh in on the royalty/trademark issue?

Nick


On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 16:50 -0500, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
display."  The main reason I feel the APL isn't compliant is that it
requires a GUI, mouse, network, and even HTTP; the GPL doesn't require
ANYTHING.  Reliance on a particular technology violates OSD #10.

I've heard this several times GUI required, but IMHO I think it's far easier.  I don't think the WPL meets OSD #1.

"The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

It's clever, but it ties the use of the software to permission to use the trademark, yes?  Exhibit B basically says
a) you must include our trademark on each UI screen.
and
b) you have no right to use our trademark.

Is it correct to assume that the trademark holder (ie, almost certainly the WPL copyright holder) can charge a royalty, fee, or otherwise prohibit the distribution of an aggregate software if their trademark is being used?  ie, CentOS have had to remove trademark notices to distribute their downstream product because of this very reason. 

Doesn't this tie use of the product to the right (not granted) to use the trademark (controlled outside the license by tm holder)?

Anyhow who knows more about this than me (I'm guess probably 95% of this email list) care to weigh in on the royalty/trademark issue?

Nick