[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Educational Community License 1.0

Thanks for this information. I ran into Mako Hill yesterday and we now have a new plan of action:

-  GPL v3 Scratch (Assuming I can get the rest of my team on board).

- Separate trademark license to allow Debian and other distros to distribute the package with our trademarks (the cat, the name Scratch, the Logo) under certain conditions.

I'm told others have used a separate trademark license, so I'm looking for guidelines / examples to model ours on. Any recommendations? Are there standard trademark / distribution licenses we could use?

We just don't want people distributing modified versions of Scratch as Scratch, or otherwise using the logo / Scratch Cat, which might create confusion.

Thanks so much for your help -


On 08/19/2011 04:41 AM, Francesco Poli wrote:
On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:56:43 +0200 Miriam Ruiz wrote:

Hi Miriam,
nice to read you!

A project I'm interested in is considering the The Educational
Community License 1.0

Why, oh why, do people go on writing new useless licenses?
It seems that they cannot help but increase license
proliferation...  :-(

[insert here the usual rant against license proliferation, which is bad,
because it increases legal uncertainty with uncommon and
not-well-understood licenses, it adds complexity to license
compatibility and interaction analysis, and so forth...]

We need more Free Software, not more licenses!

I don't think there is any obvious problem with it, but I thought it
would be better to ask here too, just in case, as there doesn't seem
to be any package in the archive using it (AFAIK). What do you think?
I haven't spotted any major issue in the license text.

Apart from the fact that it is the n-th non-copyleft permissive license
and that whoever is considering to adopt this license, should think
twice before adopting an obscure and uncommon license which could hide
subtle issues which are not apparent.

I strongly recommend anyone considering to adopt the ECL v1.0, to
re-consider and choose a widely-used and well-understood non-copyleft
license, such as:

  * the Expat/MIT license  http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt

  * the 3-clause BSD license  http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license

  * the zlib license  http://www.gzip.org/zlib/zlib_license.html

I hope this helps.

Reply to: