5 ms·

> No license is granted to the trademarks of the copyright holders even if such marks are included in this software. This line was probably required to get som

by oddevan 11y ago

> No license is granted to the trademarks of the copyright holders even if such marks are included in this software. This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this. There are few companies as protective of their trademarks--their _name_--as Apple, and they probably wanted to make sure that an accidental commit from a developer that included an Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable damage to their trademark. Valid fear? That's debatable. But I'd rather have a company add _one line_ to an already minimal license than not open source at all out of this fear.

DannyBee 11y ago
"This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this." I agree here :) "Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable damage to their trademark." As I said, this is a problem either no company who uses the BSD license has or all of them have it. "But I'd rather have a company add _one line_ to an already minimal license than not open source at all out of this fear." I don't agree here at all. Because this is how we ended up with the mess that caused things like open source license certification by OSI to exist in the first place. Random companies would add random one-liners to licenses, like "don't use in nuclear reactors", etc. Down this path is madness, and it starts with good intentions.
- derefr 11y ago
  It's probably a problem all of them have. Apple is just the only company that cares enough to make a big deal about it in advance, rather than imagining that they'll just let things slide for now and argue post-facto in some later court case that the license should be read as not granting trademarks. In other words, this isn't like the nuclear reactors bit—this is something that could actually belong in the BSD license, and where when merging BSD-licensed software with Apple!BSD-licensed software, probably the Apple!BSD would keep winning, and the trait would end up at fixation, rather than "speciating" the license.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    1. I strongly disagree with the idea that they are the only ones who would consider it a large deal enough to do something if it was a real fear. It's somewhat ridiculous to believe that, say, Google or Facebook, wouldn't do the same if they thought it was a concern. 2. The part about "having to argue post-facto" would be a valid line of argument if, as i pointed out, there wasn't already plenty of precedent that shows their fear is completely and utterly unwarranted. In fact, i doubt they could even cite a single time a judge even considered this a non-crazy argument. In other words, this in fact, is exactly like the nuclear reactors bit. It doesn't actually belong in the license, because if was a real concern: A. There would be at least some case somewhere that concerneed folks. B. After 20+ years of BSD licenses, it'd already be there
JohnTHaller 11y ago
Unfortunately, that single line addition means that this code can't be used with other open source projects. It can't be combined with code released under the BSD, MIT, MPL, GPL or other OSI-certified open source licenses and kept under the same OSI license. This puts it more in the 'shared source' realm than the 'open source' realm.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Why exactly couldn't it be combined with those licenses?
  - JohnTHaller 11y ago
    The GPL forbids additional restrictions on code, so you can't legally combine something that is GPL with a restriction like this. Adding something like this (that we'll call Apple BSD) to anything that is MIT/BSD would end up being Apple BSD, because you'd have to ensure this restriction is applied to the resulting product, over an above MIT/BSD.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      So it's not actually incompatible with BSD/MIT. As for the GPL, I think you missed section 7 - "Additional Terms": Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks
      - comex 11y ago
        If anyone's wondering, the GPLv2 is slightly less explicit: it doesn't directly state that it's strictly a copyright license rather than involving trademarks, but it's strongly implied, and has been treated as such in court, e.g. this from Germany: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b0c0785-3eac-4cbc-ad08-2afba447b1e3 http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b0c0785-3eac-...

by oddevan 11y ago

DannyBee 11y ago

"This line was probably required to get some manager at Apple to sign off on this." I agree here :) "Apple logo or the word 'iPhone' didn't cause irreparable damage to their trademark." As I said, this is a problem either no company who uses the BSD license has or all of them have it. "But I'd rather have a company add _one line_ to an already minimal license than not open source at all out of this fear." I don't agree here at all. Because this is how we ended up with the mess that caused things like open source license certification by OSI to exist in the first place. Random companies would add random one-liners to licenses, like "don't use in nuclear reactors", etc. Down this path is madness, and it starts with good intentions.

derefr 11y ago
It's probably a problem all of them have. Apple is just the only company that cares enough to make a big deal about it in advance, rather than imagining that they'll just let things slide for now and argue post-facto in some later court case that the license should be read as not granting trademarks. In other words, this isn't like the nuclear reactors bit—this is something that could actually belong in the BSD license, and where when merging BSD-licensed software with Apple!BSD-licensed software, probably the Apple!BSD would keep winning, and the trait would end up at fixation, rather than "speciating" the license.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  1. I strongly disagree with the idea that they are the only ones who would consider it a large deal enough to do something if it was a real fear. It's somewhat ridiculous to believe that, say, Google or Facebook, wouldn't do the same if they thought it was a concern. 2. The part about "having to argue post-facto" would be a valid line of argument if, as i pointed out, there wasn't already plenty of precedent that shows their fear is completely and utterly unwarranted. In fact, i doubt they could even cite a single time a judge even considered this a non-crazy argument. In other words, this in fact, is exactly like the nuclear reactors bit. It doesn't actually belong in the license, because if was a real concern: A. There would be at least some case somewhere that concerneed folks. B. After 20+ years of BSD licenses, it'd already be there

JohnTHaller 11y ago

Unfortunately, that single line addition means that this code can't be used with other open source projects. It can't be combined with code released under the BSD, MIT, MPL, GPL or other OSI-certified open source licenses and kept under the same OSI license. This puts it more in the 'shared source' realm than the 'open source' realm.

icebraining 11y ago
Why exactly couldn't it be combined with those licenses?
- JohnTHaller 11y ago
  The GPL forbids additional restrictions on code, so you can't legally combine something that is GPL with a restriction like this. Adding something like this (that we'll call Apple BSD) to anything that is MIT/BSD would end up being Apple BSD, because you'd have to ensure this restriction is applied to the resulting product, over an above MIT/BSD.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    So it's not actually incompatible with BSD/MIT. As for the GPL, I think you missed section 7 - "Additional Terms": Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms: e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks
    - comex 11y ago
      If anyone's wondering, the GPLv2 is slightly less explicit: it doesn't directly state that it's strictly a copyright license rather than involving trademarks, but it's strongly implied, and has been treated as such in court, e.g. this from Germany: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b0c0785-3eac-4cbc-ad08-2afba447b1e3 http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b0c0785-3eac-...