Francis Hunt scripsit:
I completely agree and that is the point. The intention of the OSI
certification mark is surely to convince people that the product it is
associated with is Open Source. Hence why does the use of the OSI
certification mark not require source code distribution as well
The question is not well-formed, because it is not software
but licenses that are certified.
Acuatlly, John, it is exactly the opposite. Licenses are approved,
software is certified if it is distributed under an approved license.
Trademark law does not allow a trademark on a license,
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
Acuatlly, John, it is exactly the opposite. Licenses are approved,
software is certified if it is distributed under an approved license.
Trademark law does not allow a trademark on a license, because it is
neither goods nor services.
Sorry, yes, that's what I
Licensor under the AFL (and the OSL) has an obligation to make the
source code available to his licensees, whoever they may be.
I'm not sure that this applies to the original licensor of the S/W. The
way I understand the AFL, it says:
if you have received this software under the terms of AFL
4 matches
Mail list logo
