Possible OSI certification mark abuse

[David K. Gasaway]

Hi, folks.  I apologize if this is not the correct forum, but I'm
looking for information on how to report possible misuse of the OSI
certification mark.  I can not find any relevant information on the OSI
web site.  Thank you.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave@...
-:-:- Web  : dave.gasaway.org

[Matthew Flaschen]

David K. Gasaway wrote:
> Hi, folks.  I apologize if this is not the correct forum, but I'm
> looking for information on how to report possible misuse of the OSI
> certification mark.  I can not find any relevant information on the OSI
> web site.  Thank you.

Here is fine.  What's the URL?

Matthew Flaschen

[David K. Gasaway]

On 23 Mar 2007 at 2:36, Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Here is fine.  What's the URL?

I wasn't intending to make a report just yet, but gather more
information.  But now that you've asked, I'd hate to leave everyone
hanging. :)

http://dm2.sourceforge.net/

The OSI mark appears on the right.  The third paragraph is the text
"DM2 is free for noncommercial use, under the following EULA. Source is
released under the terms of the GPL license."  I can't make out whether
they are trying to claim the EULA only applies to their binaries, or
perhaps if this some pooly executed attempt at dual-licensing.  But I
can tell you that both licenses are included with the binary releases
as well as source releases.

I attempted to contact the developers long ago, but received no
respose:

http://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=1555600&forum_id=455286

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave@...
-:-:- Web  : dave.gasaway.org

[David K. Gasaway]

On 23 Mar 2007 at 0:02, David K. Gasaway wrote:

> The OSI mark appears on the right.  

Sorry, that should be left, but it really isn't much challenge to find
it. :)

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave@...
-:-:- Web  : dave.gasaway.org

[Matthew Flaschen]

David K. Gasaway wrote:
> The OSI mark appears on the right.  The third paragraph is the text
> "DM2 is free for noncommercial use, under the following EULA. Source is
> released under the terms of the GPL license."  I can't make out whether
> they are trying to claim the EULA only applies to their binaries, or
> perhaps if this some pooly executed attempt at dual-licensing.  But I
> can tell you that both licenses are included with the binary releases
> as well as source releases.

Licensing only the source under the GPL isn't unprecedented, but I think
it's a bad idea.  It makes people unsure whether they can distribute
recompiled binaries under the GPL.  This case is even more ambiguous,
since the EULA isn't clear on whether it applies to binaries, source or
both.  There is no source-only distribution, so I think the OSI logo is
particularly misleading.  There's no way you can easily (there is an SVN
archive) download a completely Open Source version.

Matthew Flaschen

[David K. Gasaway]

RE: DM2.  References to the EULA have been removed from the site and
from new release files.  Many thanks for your assistance.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave@...
-:-:- Web  : dave.gasaway.org

[ynneb]

Does this mean that DM2 can now be freely used in commercial environments as well, without author's explicit permission?

David K. Gasaway wrote:

RE: DM2.  References to the EULA have been removed from the site and
from new release files.  Many thanks for your assistance.

--
-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: [e-mail]
-:-:- Web  : dave.gasaway.org

[Matthew Flaschen]

ynneb wrote:
> Does this mean that DM2 can now be freely used in commercial environments as
> well, without author's explicit permission?

It would appear so.  It now says "DM2 is free for use." without any
caveats, and still specifically puts the source under the GPL.

Matt Flaschen

[ynneb]

Hmm.... I just installed the newest version (1.23.1 I think it was), and while indeed the site doesn't mention it, the clause is still present in the program itself: "free for non-commercial use, released under GPL" (it displays on the main window when you click the DM2 in the systray).  I'm guessing the authors forgot to remove it?  Should we nag them about it?

PS. Sorry about late reply - haven't had time.  Got my first IT job and I'm slaving overtime to catch up :(  I guess we all gotta pay our dues.

mattflaschen wrote:

ynneb wrote:
> Does this mean that DM2 can now be freely used in commercial environments as
> well, without author's explicit permission?

It would appear so.  It now says "DM2 is free for use." without any
caveats, and still specifically puts the source under the GPL.

Matt Flaschen