When will CPAL actually be _used_?

Ross Mayfield ross.mayfield at socialtext.com
Tue Aug 21 23:18:32 UTC 2007

Thanks, Rick,

Our next release of Socialtext Open will be under CPAL.  We've been
swamped setting up a new release management process and hosting
BarCamp this weekend.  Should be next week.


On 8/21/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
> Hello, Ross.  I noted with great interest Socialtext's submission of
> Common Public Attribution License to OSI, at the beginning of July, and
> in fact posted favourable comments on it to the license-discuss mailing
> list, at that time.  The OSI Board then, of course, approved it on July
> 25.
> Since then, your firm's press releases and numerous bits of news
> coverage (The Register, CMS Wire, eWeek, and quite a few others) have
> proclaimed your firm's conversion of Socialtext Open to this new
> OSI-certified licence.
> In addition, your firm's Web pages began prominently featuring OSI's
> "OSI Certified" regulated certification mark logo, which may be used
> only for codebases released under OSI certified open source licences.
> So, I am obliged to ask:  When will your product actually use CPAL?
> To date, it is not.  To wit:
> o  The SourceForge.net project at
>    http://sourceforge.net/projects/socialtext/ has, as the latest
>    downloadable tarball, Socialtext Open release  It's perhaps
>    understandable that _that_ form of access to source code still gets the
>    user only code under the "Socialtext Public Licence 1.0" MPL 1.1 +
>    Exhibit B badgeware licence -- because that tarball, your latest full
>    release, was dated May 22, 2007, prior to your CPAL announcements.
> o  However, what's a bit more difficult to understand is that following
>    hyperlinks for source code access on your coprorate Web site takes you
>    to http://www.socialtext.net/open/index.cgi?socialtext_open_source_code,
>    which cites a svn command to check the "head" development codebase out
>    of repo.socialtext.net -- and _that_ code, your very latest developer
>    code, is _likewise_ under Socialtext Public Licence 1.0.
> So, when is Socialtext going to actually _use_ the OSI-certified licence
> that it's been claiming in public to be using?
> Also, would you mind please removing the "OSI Certified" logo from your
> pages until such time as you are legally entitled to use it?  Thank you.
> As a reminder, I called your attention here on December 29, 2006 to your
> then-advertised wiki page http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/ claiming in
> error that Socialtext had submitted SPL 1.0 to OSI's certification
> process, when it had not done so.  You acknowledged the critique, but
> Socialtext did not fix the misstatement of fact until I reminded you of
> it a second time, here, on January 22, 2007.  I hope that your
> firm's correction of its erroneous public licensing information, this
> time, will be significantly faster.
> Best Regards,
> Rick Moen
> rick at linuxmafia.com
> (speaking only for himself)

Ross Mayfield
CEO & Co-founder
1-877-GET-WIKI, ext. 209
655 High St. Palo Alto, CA 94301
ross.mayfield at socialtext.com
company: http://www.socialtext.com
blog: http://ross.typepad.com
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

More information about the License-discuss mailing list