Re: Alternative trigger condition.
Ross N. Williams writes:
> I have changed the note to:
>
> Note : Because this licence permits use on free
> platforms only, it does not satisfy the
> requirements for use of the US certification
> mark "open source" as defined by the mark's
> registrants in the web site www.opensource.org.
> Consequently, this licence should not be
> referred to as an "open source" licence and
> software released under this licence should not
> be referred to as "open source". However, you
> can refer to such software as "free software".
>
> which I hope is less offensive. I'm assuming it was the
> "you are free to..." part that was offensive. If it's the
> idea of referring to it as free software that's offensive then
> let me know.
The OSI doesn't hold "Open Source" as a certification mark; it holds
"OSI Certified Open Source".
Neither "open source" nor "free software" is a registered trademark,
but both have reasonably well-understood meanings which are intended
to be equivalent. (Concretely, the Open Source Definition is
derived from a draft of a group of free software developers' opinions
on what is meant by free software.)
You are not infringing any trademarks I know of if you call your
license a "free software license" or an "open source license", but
I don't think you would manage to obtain a consensus that it
actually _is_ either of those things.
--
Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> | And do not say, I will study when I
Temp. http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | have leisure; for perhaps you will
down: http://www.loyalty.org/ (CAF) | not have leisure. -- Pirke Avot 2:5
Reply to: