InfoWorld: Pentaho opens up further (Exhibit B to real MPL)

Andrew C. Oliver acoliver at
Wed Jan 31 05:10:48 UTC 2007

As long as they are pre-vetted for among other things...making sense 
together.  I really dislike "must not use any of the trademarks" + "must 
display this trademark" combined as terms.  In general I like the CC 
ideal, but they pre-vet things to make sure they make sense when used 
together.   Wondering what two licenses can be used together is bad 
enough...wondering which 10 clauses....with which 10 other clauses....

We can only dream of deprecating the whole dang list for a set of clear 
CC like terms that are well understood and make sense and don't read 
like Ted Kaczynski wrote them.


Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007, Radcliffe, Mark wrote:
>> Since I assisted Ross with the submission to OSI, I think the list
>> should be aware that the submission was meant to get an attribution
>> provision approved that would work in a variety of circumstances to
>> avoid numerous licenses with slightly different "attribution"
>> provisions. Our goal was to get a standard approach rather than having
>> each company submit a different version of attribution (please note that
>> the SugarCRM attribution provision varies from Zimbra attribution
>> provision).
> I think the idea of a combinatorical set of license terms for Open 
> Source is a good one, and should be pursued, but not piecemeal.  
> Instead it should be done as a set, like the Creative Commons did.  
> Might even be worth asking how much of CC's templates and modules 
> could be re-used for such an effort.
>     Brian

No PST Files Ever Again
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
Email, Calendaring, ease of configuration/administration

More information about the License-discuss mailing list