Re: right of publicity, or why no-advertising clauses are not necessary
On Sat, May 15, 2004 at 10:37:52AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > * The "Broadcom Corporation" name may not be
> > * used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> > * without the prior written permission of Broadcom Corporation.
> > This is an additional restriction not present in the GNU GPL.
> So why does the GNU Project list the "modified BSD license" on their
> licenses page under "GPL-Compatible, Free Software Licenses"
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html), when the version of
> that license they link to on the XFree86 page
> (http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#5) contains:
> > 3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote
> > products derived from this software without specific prior written
> > permission.
> I believe the GNU Project's rationale for this is the same as the
> explanation you provided for why these clauses are not necessary: since
> you cannot do what they prohibit even if they were not present in the
> license, they are not additional restrictions above the GPL.
They're different. You can't use my name to endorse products without my
permission, nor can you use my trademarks (as far as I know) to do the
However, if something isn't trademarked, none of that (as far as I know)
applies. It becomes an arbitrary restriction on a word, eg:
The word "Desk" may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
from this software without the prior written permission of Glenn Maynard.
which is clearly non-free--I have no rights to the word "Desk", and applying
restrictions on it is probably in contractual license territory.
Whether they actually have a trademark on "Broadcom Corporation" doesn't
matter: if they were to lose that trademark for any reason in the future,
the same would happen.
That's why the alternate wordings are preferable, such as the one Branden
suggested, if any is needed at all.