Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: "Chris Travers" <chris.travers@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:38:53 -0700
Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:38:53 -0700
On 9/30/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> I'm seeing a huge difference between "this products runs on Windows" and
> "this product runs on a Microsoft platform".


The only difference I can see is the question of specificity.  Frankly
neither one is terribly specific and is probably not meaningful.

Do you see this same difference in "LedgerSMB runs on Windows Vista" and
"LedgerSMB runs on Microsoft Windows VIsta?"  If so, I think I want whatever
you are smoking ;-)


The former is certainly more
> defendable, given the Microsoft provides kits to build products running on
> that platform and licences Windows (for this reason, Microsoft has chosen
> to
> be liberal here by allowing references to Windows, but defined a "logo"
> program requiring additional licence for those that use specific forms of
> referencing it).



Can you show my *any* cases where mere statements of product compatibility
can be absolutely controlled by a company whether or not the corporate name
is mentioned?  This is not the same as the logo program.

BTW, I have seen licenses that raised the sorts of concerns you make,
particularly those licenses which require the use of a trademark in
derivative works, but I really don't see how they apply here.  So far, we
have heard even from EU-based trademark lawyers that nominative fair use
would appear to apply to these simple statements of fact.  Furthermore the
same arguments can be made about the 3-clause BSD license on the OSI site.

We should be in the business of approving licenses, not approving submitters
of licenses.  If this is a concern worthy of barring the approval of the
Microsoft licenses, we should drop the approval of the New BSD license on
the site.  I dont think it is such an issue though.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers




On 9/30/07, Philippe Verdy <verdy_p@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
I'm seeing a huge difference between "this products runs on Windows" and
"this product runs on a Microsoft platform".

The only difference I can see is the question of specificity.  Frankly neither one is terribly specific and is probably not meaningful.

Do you see this same difference in "LedgerSMB runs on Windows Vista" and "LedgerSMB runs on Microsoft Windows VIsta?"  If so, I think I want whatever you are smoking ;-)
 

The former is certainly more
defendable, given the Microsoft provides kits to build products running on
that platform and licences Windows (for this reason, Microsoft has chosen to
be liberal here by allowing references to Windows, but defined a "logo"
program requiring additional licence for those that use specific forms of
referencing it).


Can you show my *any* cases where mere statements of product compatibility can be absolutely controlled by a company whether or not the corporate name is mentioned?  This is not the same as the logo program.

BTW, I have seen licenses that raised the sorts of concerns you make, particularly those licenses which require the use of a trademark in derivative works, but I really don't see how they apply here.  So far, we have heard even from EU-based trademark lawyers that nominative fair use would appear to apply to these simple statements of fact.  Furthermore the same arguments can be made about the 3-clause BSD license on the OSI site.

We should be in the business of approving licenses, not approving submitters of licenses.  If this is a concern worthy of barring the approval of the Microsoft licenses, we should drop the approval of the New BSD license on the site.  I dont think it is such an issue though.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers