I was looking to use some code from the OpenStudio Application and have a question.
As I understand it, the OpenStudio Application code is dual licensed under its BSD style license and the GNU GPLv3.
https://github.com/openstudiocoalition/OpenStudioApplication/blob/develop/LICENSE.md
My question is about clause (4) of the OpenStudio Application's BSD style license.
(4) Other than as required in clauses (1) and (2), distributions in any form of modifications or other derivative works may not use the "OpenStudio" trademark, "OS", "os", or any other confusingly similar designation without specific prior written permission from Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
In addition to the requirements from clauses (1)-(3), which are almost the same as the standard BSD-3-Clause license, and the GNU GPLv3 license, do I need to alter "OpenStudio" and similar text in the code to comply with clause (4)? For example, changing from OpenStudio to ClosedStudio, like how Mozilla Firefox was changed to Debian Iceweasel.
Post Script
I know this is a legal question, which is hard to answer and I understand the legitimate reluctance, so I dug a little deeper myself. Not surprisingly, questions about trademarks and the GNU GPLv3, the BSD-3-Clause license, and other open-source licenses have come up before.
As I understand it, the OpenStudio code is dual licensed under the GNU GPLv3 and the OpenStudio license since OpenStudio uses at least one module of Qt licensed under the GNU GPLv3.
The BSD-3-Clause license is compatible with the GNU GPLv3 as the conditions of both licenses can be simultaneously satisfied.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD
The OpenStudio license is similar to the BSD-3-Clause license with an additional clause (4).
(4) Other than as required in clauses (1) and (2), distributions in any form of modifications or other derivative works may not use the "OpenStudio" trademark, "OS", "os", or any other confusingly similar designation without specific prior written permission from Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
The GNU GPLv3 Additional Terms allows adding trademark restrictions, so this should still be compatible.
you may [...] 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;
However, it is a bit strange to put explicit trademark restrictions in the OpenStudio license since the BSD-3-Clause license is meant to be applied to code and trademark restrictions already exist without the additional clause (4).
Something that could be a problem for clause (4) of the OpenStudio license is nominative use of the trademarked OpenStudio name and logo. For example, a forked software satisfying all other legal requirements could have an About window that states the software is a fork of OpenStudio, having to use the text "OpenStudio" in the files and interface to refer to OpenStudio. Clause (4) could be incompatible with nominative use, and what would that mean for the enforcement and validity of the OpenStudio license?
https://google.github.io/opencasebook/trademarks/#fair-use-defense-to-trademark-infringement-nominative-use
Another potential problem is the .osm file extension, which stands for OpenStudio Model. The .osm file extension clearly refers to OpenStudio, so a fork of OpenStudio would have to have the "OpenStudio", "OS", "os", and other similar text in the code to read a .osm file. Can forked software read a .osm file without specific prior written permission from the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC?
And a rather silly potential problem is the use of "os" in forked code as an acronym for operating system. Is this allowed by clause (4)?
Unlike copyright, trademarks are not automatic. From the use of (R) in the first line of the OpenStudio license,
OpenStudio(R), Copyright (c) 2020-2024, OpenStudio Coalition and other contributors. All rights reserved.
OpenStudio should already be a registered trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). There are already a whole lot of protections that come with a registered trademark without clause (4) potentially violating nominative use. If clause (4) was not to prevent the use or "OpenStudio", "OS", "os", and other similar text in forked code, then why does clause (4) exist at all?
Post Post Script
I noticed the OpenStudio Application 1.9.0 Help -> About window implies that all the Qt modules used by the OpenStudio Application are available under GPL or LGPL, but I don't think that's the case.
One of the modules used in the code is QtCharts, which the Qt6.5 page for states it is only available under under Commercial or GPLv3. https://doc.qt.io/qt-6.5/qtcharts-index.html
This is why I thought the OpenStudio Application is dual licensed under the OpenStudio BSD-3-Clause based license and the GNU GPLv3. The code I was hoping to make nice Air Loop diagrams with is from HVACSystemsView.cpp, and related files, uses QCharts.
This would infect the OpenStudio Application code with the GNU GPLv3. From my previous look into use of the OpenStudio trademark text use in the code, I wonder if the current OpenStudio BSD-3-Clause based license is compatible with the GNU GPLv3 while restricting use of "OpenStudio" text in the code so strongly.
Link to the issue on the OpenStudio Application github repo.
https://github.com/openstudiocoalition/OpenStudioApplication/issues/836
