> "Forrest J. Cavalier III" wrote: > > > There are two ways that I see trademark clauses written > > in licenses. As I read the GPL, trademark protection clauses > > as a condition of license are not GPL compatible. But > > trademark warning statements along the lines of "Nothing in this license > > gives you...." don't seem to impose a further restriction, and therefore are > > GPL compatible, in my understanding. > > > > That's also the message I'm getting from the FSF at the moment > (more specifically, from Bradley M. Kuhn). >
(Thanks for confirming that. FSF licensing answers must be swamped, based on delayed responses to items I submitted in the last month.) That FSF position might explain the W3C license being OK. The W3C is a pretty unique license, because the only conditions it seems to impose are propagating the license and notice (including the trademark statement.), It doesn't make compliance with the statement a condition for permission to use the software. That seems like a strategy which could be abused. Suppose I tacked a notice onto the W3C license: "The copyright holders expect payment of $50.00 from you to <name> at <address.>" Wouldn't that still be GPL compatible and OSD compliant, since it expresses an expectation of payment. It doesn't require it. I wonder what kind of revenue stream it would create. -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3