Badgeware licences, Take Two (was: Ethical Restriction)

Dave Rosenberg daverosenberg at
Thu Feb 1 06:06:00 UTC 2007

Again, I think interpretation is in the eye of the beholder. Re: FAQ, it's
completely possible that it was wrong to begin with, but not everyone has
time to read these license-discuss threads (though perhaps if we had sooner
than we could have fixed things in a more timely manner) so take it as you

We are absolutely happy to submit our license, but have been in contact with
a number of OSI board members who suggested we wait and see what happened
with the SocialText submission. Our goal was not/is not to create confusion
or non-compliance with the OSI. We don't use the OSI badge, and we have been
counseled that the license is compliant. We'll figure that out soon enough
as we continue the discovery.

RE: IP protection--We have run into multiple issues with public and private
companies who have made attempts to skirt the MPL/MSPL/maybe anything and
essentially take Mule as their own with no recognition of the author,
copyrights, license agreements etc. Forking is one thing, stealing is
another. Your Firefox example is actually one that I hadn't entirely
considered (so thank you for the input.)

I don't know that the attribution clause makes any difference--which is why
I asked for suggestions. It's highly possible that we can switch to the MPL
with zero negative effects--we just haven't figured it out yet. For that
matter we might also consider the GPL.

Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Dave Rosenberg (daverosenberg at
>> 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. What I was specifically talking about was the method
>> that would allow users wanting to use Mule in a commercial product
>> with no attribution.
> Which is just a fancy way of saying "If you need to avoid the badge for
> your
> commercial use, then you'll need to negotiate a separate licence with us"
> (
> -- thus (precisely) my point.  And it's interesting that all you have to
> say about the FAQ is to suggest that it's somehow up to _us_ to do
> something about it.
> Whether your FAQ entry is "correct" or not is beside my point:  It seems
> reasonable to believe it reflects what MuleSource wants people to think.
> Thus, again, my point.
> Also, come to think of it, the purpose of this mailing list isn't to
> help vendors improve their online documentation.  It's to evaluate
> submitted licences from aspiring open-source publishers, to determine if
> they can be certified as "open source".  
> Your firm, not to put too fine a point on it, has been going around for
> some time telling the public you're "open source".  Is there some
> reason why you are unable to submit your licence?  Selective finger
> malfunction, perhaps?  If not, when can we expect to see it -- and are
> you going to suspend your public claims of being "open source" until
> it's approved?
>> In no circumstance did I say that the license was designed to force
>> people
>> to pay.
> This is the Ben Tilly line:  They're not UNABLE to use the badgeware
> version in commerce.  They're juse UNWILLING.  Quoting your InfoWorld
> entry:
> "My answer was simple. You make a deal with us for a commercial license
> and then you do whatever you want."
> Right.  Exactly.
>> The license is there to protect our IP. 
> MuleSource uses this phrase a lot -- including in yesterday's
> announcement of the new badgeware provision.  But it doesn't mean
> anything.  Your "IP" (copyright title) is protected (in the USA) by 17
> U.S.C., the Copyright Act.  It is neither more nor less protected with
> the badgeware clause.  
> Do you think the "IP" (copyright title) in Firefox (real MPL 1.1) is up
> for grabs?  Try creating and redistributing a proprietary, binary-only
> fork, and see how long the court summons takes.
> -- 
> Cheers,           "You know, I've gone to a lot of psychics, and they've
> told me
> Rick Moen         a lot of different things, but not one of them has ever
> told me
> rick at      'You are an undercover policewoman, here to
> arrest me.'"
>                                           -- New York City undercover
> policewoman

View this message in context:
Sent from the OpenSource - License-Discuss mailing list archive at

More information about the License-discuss mailing list