[Fwd: FW: For Approval: Generic Attribution Provision]

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:

> Nicholas Goodman has
> pointed out, in that connection, that "Exhibit B" firm MuleSource has
> recently stated bluntly that its licence's _aim_ is to induce commercial
> users of its MPL + Exhibit B codebase to buy a "commercial licence", 
> instead:
> http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/12/22/badgeware-ceo-to-community-buy-a-commercial-license/
> 

From
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/11/licensing_in_lo.html:

> Just as so many other things in OSS are confusing, it appears that this too has created 
> some consternation-primarily because people want to embed Mule in
their products and
>couldn't quite make sense of how the attribution would work.

Not only do they slip in another reassurance that MuleSource is open
source, they have the nerve to blame the open source community for their
own confusing and unapproved license!

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/20070104/4708c880/attachment.sig>