Re: wpoison, is it okay?
> Re-read. It says "the official Wpoison logo itself must be include"
> [sic].
So I noticed. I figured it was a typo: a missing "d". I assumed that you
figured it was an extra "be ".
I do agree with you that the grammar errors should be cleaned up;
unambiguity is of course desirable and arguably neccesary.
> Like I said, I don't think this is what the copyright holder had in
> mind. I think he means that *if* you use the official logo in an HTML
> document, *then* you must make that HTML document link the official
> logo
> image to the Wpoison home page.
That's how I read it as well.
> At any rate, I would reject this requirement as violating the DFSG,
> perhaps DFSG 6. A tentative version of the Zope license from a few
> years ago, which would require every HTML page generated by Zope to
> have
> a "Powered by Zope" button on it that you weren't allowed to remove,
> was
> held as DFSG-unfree by Bruce Perens and others. This situation is
> obviously similar.
Here, I disagree.
This is a different situation since in the case of Zope, the button would
be forcibly placed; with your interpretation of how this license is
intended (as opposed to what it says - again, it has to be cleaned up),
it's only if you include the logo on your page, and what would be the
reason to do that if you wouldn't link to the wpoison page?
This is a small requirement not much different from the new BSD-
license's "always include this notice in the source code" requirement.
Whether that would make it DFSG-unfree or not, I leave unsaid, especially
in the light of recent discussion.
Reply to: