Subject: Re: APL license - What about the enforced logos?
From: Matthew Flaschen <>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:14:58 -0500
Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:14:58 -0500
Rick Moen wrote:
> It does not, of course, ' require  there be a GUI', because the law is
> interpreted by judges, and not by particularly literal-minded and
> context-challenged computerists.

No, in fact it does require one.  The requirement may found void in a
court of law.  However, it is the intent of the license to require a GUI.

> Now, I prefer licences to be clear, too -- and would certainly have
> agreed with you if you'd said "That section is badly written and should
> be rephrased, in that its language suggests that derivative works must
> be graphical, which is probably not your intent and would violate
> OSD#10" if read that way.

Originally, I was *only* referring the legal effect of the license.
However, I clearly moved on to this very topic (clarity to computer
specialists, in addition to lawyers) when I said

"First of all, OSI is approving licenses for software-oriented
commentators and software developers, so they should be making licenses
these people can understand."  And yes, that was me, because I now sign
all my posts.

In response, you said,

"all that's required to read such licences correctly is a bit of common
sense about how the law gets actually applied by real judges"

The big problem with that is that computerists don't have this so-called
common sense.  You can say that's because they're "Asperger's poster
children", but that doesn't change the fact that it is they who need to
use these licenses.

Matthew Flaschen

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]