Not OSI-approved
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jezuch Nov 07, 2006 2:46 AM EDT |
...yet. It's hard to expect that every new license will be immediately approved (or disapproved). Anyway, this looks like trademarks again. I think it's time for some discussion about that in the community. Is protection of trademark really against freedom? |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 07, 2006 4:09 AM EDT |
Nope, it's not a trademark issue. It's the old-BSD style attribution clause which was removed in '98 from the BSD license for good reason. And if you look at the OSI pages, you'll see that only new-BSD is OSI approved, not old-BSD. |
| Strop Nov 07, 2006 4:51 AM EDT |
Under the current terms, you are not allowed to remove the code that contains the "Powered by SugarCRM" icon and text. I.e. you do not have full freedom to alter the code. With regards to trade marks - both RedHat and Mozilla are protecting their trademarks by forcing copiers to *remove* their logos, graphics, etc. from the product - not forcing them to include it. Forcing you to remove a trade mark would mean protecting it - forcing the developer to include it would mean a restriction. AFAIK, Open Source is about granting rights, not impose restrictions. |
| dcparris Nov 07, 2006 8:31 AM EDT |
I still haven't had time to look into this any further. Based on what I've seen though, this is definitely an "old BSD-type" issue. I appreciate you posting it for us. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!