Badgeware licences, Take Two

[Dave Rosenberg]

Thanks for pointing to those statements in the FAQ. While I am not sure that
the statements are wrong, they are clearly open to interpretation.
Regardless, we intended to remove them when we made the license change.
Sorry to add to the confusion.

It would have been helpful for you to have sent me a note so that we can
help to dispel any confusion or inaccuracy. Should there be other issues,
please don't hesitate to let me know. 


mattflaschen wrote:
> 
> Rick Moen wrote:
>> Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):
>> 
>>> Their FAQ (http://mulesource.com/products/licensing.php) also has the
>>> interesting interpretation that one cannot:
>>>
>>> * Sell any MSPL covered code
>>> * Sell derived works of Mule
>> 
>> Yes.  You may recall I asked John Roberts of SugarCRM to explain how a
>> very
>> similar FAQ entry on _that_ firm's Web pages
> 
> Yes, I remember.
> 
>   The MuleSource and SugarCRM FAQs say third parties
>> _may not sell derivatives_.
> 
> Actually, these two both ban sales outright; see
> http://www.sugarcrm.com/crm/open-source/public-license-faq.html and
> http://mulesource.com/products/licensing.php.  Jitterbit (another
> company Radcliffe consulted for) says
> (http://www.jitterbit.com/Product/licensefaq.php) "Despite your
> copyright, you can not sell derived code" [of JPL code].  One would hope
> these companies know they probably can not enforce restrictions counter
> to their license; who are they fooling, themselves or their customers?
> 
>> 
>> Anyway, predictably, we're now seeing the beginning of Badgeware Take Two
>> --
>> MuleSource yesterday, probably Socialtext in a few days or so.  The new
>> tack seems to be to _try_ to defuse the heretofore slam-dunk OSD#10
>> argument (which effort from MuleSource I do appreciate, as it at least
>> tries, and can probably be fixed in that area), but retains from Take
>> One the "big logo with name and URL must be shoved into every user's
>> face" notion.
> 
> It's certainly an improvement, but still non-compliant in my view.
> 
>> Something I forgot to address earlier.  Craig Muth wrote:
>> 
>>> Although I think many here on the list have made valid refutations for
>>> many points raised by SugarCRM, I think this one still stands:
>>>
>>>> I guess they didn't notice that it's not open source.  They
>>>> downloaded it, accessed the source, modified it, forked it, and
>>>> redistributed it.  If it smells like open source and tastes like
>>>> open source...maybe it's open source? 
>> 
>> I'll bet John Roberts (and Craig Muth) would _really_ like SATAN, then.
>> No, not Satan; SATAN, the Security Administrator Tool for Analyzing
>> Networks, released in 1995 by Dan Farmer and Wietse Venema.  The licence
>> is similar to that of pre-3.0 releases of Tripwire and the
>> source-available (pre-6.0) releases of PGP:  You could download the
>> source, access the source, modify the source, fork the source, and
>> redistribute the source.
>> 
>> If you weren't paying attention, you might consider those facts to
>> constitute "smelling like open source and tasting like open source" --
>> and might hastily conclude that it _was_ open source.  
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> SATAN's still available:  It's just that nobody's cared in a decade,
>> because its licensing crippled reuse, leaving a gap into which
>> alternatives like Nessus stepped eventually.
> 
> To be fair, it seems Nessus also cripples reuse in the traditional
> method ("You agree not to deliver or otherwise
> make available the Software, in whole or in part,
> to any party other than Tenable" ...).
> 
> Matthew Flaschen
> 
> 
>  
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Ethical-Restriction-tf3151281.html#a8743348
Sent from the OpenSource - License-Discuss mailing list archive at Nabble.com.