For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[David Woolley]

Matthew Flaschen wrote:

> Well, the license /shouldn't/ (because of OSD #6 and the "selling" word
> in OSD #1) discriminate against commercial use.  Despite the strange
> phrasing, it actually does not.

The problem is that the "commercial use" in the above paragraph has a 
different meaning (a common sense one) from the one defined in the 
licence.  That, at best is confusing.  It would be easy to subvert the 
OSD if licensors could chance the definition of "commercial use" used 
within the wording of the OSD.

Incidentally, it seems to me that, in their definition of "commercial 
use", it discriminates against non-commercial use, and, arguably, it 
discriminates against non-commercial use in the sense intended by OSI. 
I think that is the case even under US law, as I don't think there is a 
right to modify under US law (and one could make modification illegal by 
saying that the code contained intellectual property protection 
mechanisms).  Doesn't the OSI actually say "field of endeavour", which 
would include personal not for profit use.

Also, it explicitly includes "Use" under the uses permitted by the 
licence.  That has an implication that, to the extent enforceable by 
law, Use is not allowed without a licence.

Even if MPL is grand-fathered in and there is precedent that any implied 
field of endeavour restrictions are not real, I don't think one should 
be encouraging the inclusion of questinable wording in derived licences.

IANAL etc.


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.