Any ETA on the assessment of this license? Thanks in advance.
Iñaki
On Fri, 1 Apr 2022 at 15:47, Iñaki Ucar <iucar(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2022 at 20:52, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 02:50:28PM -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > "The name and trademarks of copyright holder(s) may NOT be used in
> > advertising or publicity pertaining to the Software or any derivatives
> > without specific, written prior permission."
> >
> > while the NTP counterpart says:
> >
> > "and that the name (TrademarkedName) not be used in advertising or
> > publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without specific,
> > written prior permission."
>
> I can definitely see a practical concern here. In the second case,
> (TrademarkedName) is usually the organization — for example, the WordNet
> variant says
>
> "The name of Princeton University or Princeton may not be used in
> advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
> and/or database."
>
> That's easy to follow. On the other hand, it's very common for us to use
the
> name of a piece of software in Fedora Linux release announcements. Like,
> "This release now includes WordNet 3.0", or whatever.
But, again the last clause in the OpenFlow license is exactly the same
as in the W3C license, which is OSI-approved. So my understanding is
that the fundamental part to assess here is the "under the copyrights"
addendum compared to a standard MIT license.
--
Iñaki Úcar
--
Iñaki Úcar