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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 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
