Subject: Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
From: Chris Zumbrunn <chris@czv.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 17:12:22 +0200


On Oct 7, 2007, at 11:30 , Rick Moen wrote:

> Quoting Philippe Verdy (verdy_p@wanadoo.fr):
>
>> This is not a hypothetical case.
>
> Oh?  Someone's offering for sale a boxed set of open-source software
> with a sticker saying "Microsoft Public Licensed"?  Where precisely  
> can
> I find that, then?

lol

>> Such system also protects mere designations of a product, and we  
>> can find
>> laws that is protecting consumers from fake designations in  
>> advertising. But
>> the problem is to be able to prove that the designation is fake:
>
> Your rather peculiar[1] hypothetical -- and, yes, it's a  
> hypothetical --
> does not involve designation of origin (or of anything else besides
> licensing).  It just doesn't.
>
> Please stop inventing phony trademark and quasi-trademark issues.   
> This
> is a waste of time.
>
> [1] Another poster has already pointed out, separately, that your
> particular described hypothetical wording ("Microsoft Public  
> Licensed")
> is rather odd _and_ quite unlikely to be used.

Actually, it was me that suggested that hypothetical wording, not  
Philippe. I agree it's rather odd, but I'm not convinced it's as  
unlikely as you think. Intentionally confusing buyers into thinking  
his software is in some way "Microsoft approved" would be the reason  
why such a hypothetical developer would release under the Microsoft  
Xxxxx License and stick a "Microsoft Public Licensed" label on his  
boxes.

Again though, I think this isn't our problem. It's a problem between  
Microsoft and that developer. It's nothing that stands in the way of  
approving the licenses.

Chris