Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Not open sourceNot open sourcePosted Apr 13, 2007 17:45 UTC (Fri) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943)In reply to: Not open source by Ac Parent article: Open source Mule takes the "donkey work" out of ESB (IT Manager's Journal)
"Ac", please read Exhibit B on the licence. Requiring commercial users to use a trademarked logo and name, while simultaneously specifically denying them any licence to those trademarks, creates a trademark legal threat overshadowing such usage. (Some would argue that the requirement creates an implied trademark licence, but the point is unclear, and meanwhile that uncertainty deters commercial competition, whether so intended or not.)
Version 1.1.4 of the licence is actually radically better, in this area, than its predecessors: The earlier versions required you to have a specific-sized logo, name, and linkback display on "every user interface screen".
Rick Moen
(Log in to post comments)
Not open source Posted Apr 13, 2007 19:19 UTC (Fri) by Ac (guest, #44650) [Link] Oh yeah, I had noticed but sort of ignored that contradiction assuming that the requirement explicitly gave the needed "permission", but you're right, in a business setting, this kind of ambiguity is a red flag.
Maybe they should take another whack at it to word that part more carefully. Time spent getting the wording exactly right is well worth it later on. It's still my impression that they don't intend to restrict commercial usage.
Thanks for the clarification.
Not open source Posted Apr 14, 2007 0:02 UTC (Sat) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Ac, you're welcome.
OSI former chief counsel Larry Rosen has also pointed out a serious gotcha that should motivate firms to eschew such language: Trademark owners have a legal obligation to licence the marks only with adequate quality control or supervision (see, for USA jurisdictions: Dawn Donut Co. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 2nd Circuit, 1959). The courts have held that such failure to exercise control substantively constitutes "abandonment" of the trademark, which can lead to the mark's cancellation by (in USA) the USPTO or by judges.
When a licence like MuleSource's says that everyone must use their mark, they're automatically failing that test, and risk losing the entire trademark property.
Larry has pointed out that pitfall twice, in related discussion on the OSI license-discuss mailing list. So far, firms like MuleSource aren't heeding his warning.
Rick Moen
|
|||||||||||