Le mercredi 22 novembre 2006 à 22:59 +0100, Attila Kinali a écrit : > On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:51:16 -0500 > "Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > GPL doesn't require it, > > Oh.. i just forgot one thing. the "don't add any other restrictions" > clause of the GPL conflicts with any "you have to use our logo" clause. > > But that's only a license issue, which we can workaround by > changing the license.
Changing the license or modifying a license a bit is exactly the concern raises in the blog pointed at the beginning of this thread. In this case the MPL which allows or requires to mention the program(s) used though a splash screen. Suitable for a software but not for a web-based application, hence the idea to use a logo as a stamp. Not sure, that it would be a good idea to require or to suggest a stamp. Let's say that I reuse some part of OGP, but to do something else than graphics (simply I don't want to be related to graphics). Hence, that could confuse my customers base, I just believe that. So I won't appreciate to stick an OGP logo. Nonetheless I play the game fairly with code and spec. Now, considers that I do something in graphics, I reuse OGP code and stick the OGP's mention, but, my code is obscure, I have even ripped off the license term and I really don't bother with the documentation. Worst, I'm even a fool : I've used some proprietary IP "inadvertly". Well, one has spoken about that before. The best is to invite the manufacturer to do that, and OHF would fit better for that. Sure, if OH get more and more interest from people, manufacturers will see there a marketing advantage to stamp their products in this sens. _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
