Badgeware licences, Take Two

[Matthew Flaschen]

Dave Rosenberg wrote:
> Let's just be clear about what exactly was said about the "license's main
> point." You are taking the quote out of context in order to make your
> argument.

That may be true, but there's no context to ignore in the FAQ entry I
quoted.

> The license is there to protect our IP.

From what?

 However I do understand the
> confusion around the license and my comments--and understand that we all may
> interpret these things differently.
> 
> That said, I appreciate the feedback but wonder why not a single person who
> has so much to say about these licensing issues ever said "hey, we think you
> should consider changing this, and here is my recommendation."

I've been doing that for weeks, implicitly and explicitly.

 The same goes
> for the FAQ. If you think the information is incorrect how about helping us
> fix it?

Okay, I'll spell it out.  Take out the text
"# Sell any MSPL covered code
# Sell derived works of Mule"

from below "What am I not allowed to do with code that is covered by the
MSPL?"  It's not a question of ethics.  Legally, those restrictions are
absolutely not in either the MPL or MSPL.  You're just misstating the
license.

In general, sometimes I say how something's broken, and sometimes I say
how to fix it.  Either way, my unspoken advice is the same:

Fix it.

If you really don't know how, feel free to ask for clarification.

 Ross and I are incredibly easy to get ahold of and have numerous
> emails and phone numbers.

That may be true, but I'd rather post to the list so everyone hears the
advice.

> You do note that we made a change yesterday that significantly softens the
> attribution clause, which I have stated publicly that the old version may
> have not made sense for us in the first place.

I don't understand why you want this kind of clause at all if, as you say:

"Mule is usually middleware and often doesn't have a GUI component. As
such, the common attribution clause that expresses a demand for logo
placement on every user interface screen caused much confusion. To that
end we've decided to make changes that make more sense for where Mule
lives in the stack and we hope will make the situation less cloudy."

Are you just following the other Business Logic companies here?  Why
can't you use straight MPL?  You get a pretty OSI-certified logo to use
(http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php), and will stand away
from the pack.

 I am not sure that this
> license is the best choice, but we are still evolving. Give us a hand and
> we'll send you a Mule T-shirt (uh-oh, there's that attribution again :>)

Can I paint over it? ;)

Matthew Flaschen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20070201/ae737544/attachment.sig>