On Wed, 18 Sep 2013, John Cowan wrote:
Sec. 4.3 strikes me as actually conceptually somewhat interesting,
inasmuch as many commercial lawyers have argued that this type of
clause is often implicit in software that contains a protect trademark
embedded in the software and not removed by a downstream licensee.
In this case, however, Section 4.2 prevents you from removing the
protected trademark. Taking the two clauses together, you are effectively
prevented from making commercial use of the software without paying for
the trademark license, which obviously contravenes clauses 6 and 7 of
the OSD. So this license is on its face not Open Source.
It says:
4.3 - Commercial distribution of the Software requires a
trademark license agreement and you may be required to
pay. Using the Software within a corporation or entity is not
considered commercial distribution. This license does not grant
You rights to use any party's name, logo, or trademarks, except
solely as necessary to comply with Section 4.2.
Wouldn't the "except solely as necessary to comply with section 4.2" clause
make it okay? Section 4.2 prevents you from removing the protected
trademark, and section 4.3 allows you to use the trademark under those
circumstances.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
