Hi, Il 11/07/20 00:33, Nicholas D Steeves ha scritto: > It fails the "desert island test" because > > 1. Any mention of the features or use of this software requires > user-facing display of the text "This product includes software > developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting". > > 2. OmniTI Computer Consulting's name cannot be used to "without > specific prior written permission" Clearly point 2 cannot be interpreted in a maximalist way: I can very well use the name "OmniTI Computer Consulting" to mention that entity and factual information about it. What that clause means is that I cannot misappropriate that name, pretending to speak on their behalf, or using that name for other entities. For example, although both Microsoft and Windows are pretty probably trademarks, I can very well say that "Windows is a product by Microsoft", and also "Windows is a terrible operating system". These sentences are perfectly legal without any authorization by Microsoft. The prohibited usage is to put the name "Windows" on a Debian installation medium and distribute it pretending it is Windows (unless I have an authorization by Microsoft). So writing "This product includes software developed by OmniTI Computer Consulting" is perfectly fine (if it is true). It's just a factual statement. After all, I don't think you asked for "specific prior written permission" to OmniTI Computer Consultant before writing your email, though you mention them in it. Therefore, I don't think your point 2 is of any problem. Also, I believe that the explicit request (as per the license text) to mention the contribution by OmniIT Computer Consulting's name must be interpreted as a permission to do so. It is also specific (for that particular purpose), prior and written. So I don't believe there is any conflict between these two points. Giovanni. -- Giovanni Mascellani <g.mascellani@gmail.com> Postdoc researcher - Université Libre de Bruxelles
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature