For Approval: Common Public Attribution License (CPAL)

[Ben Tilly]

On 6/26/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Ross Mayfield wrote:
[...]
> Reading the archives.  It is most obvious from "Unfortunately, even
> after two tries there have been insufficient comments on the Adaptive
> Public License.  Maybe the third's the charm?" at
> http://www.mail-archive.com/license-discuss@opensource.org/msg07431.html
> .  It was then discussed on the list for about a week, then it seems to
> have been put on the backburner until it was recommended by Russ for
> approval in December 2004
> (http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9268:apdpdalipapaedpgofih)
> .  Note that both of the comments Russ linked are from April 2004, and
> the resubmission was in May 2004.
>
>
> However, it would be better to hear from someone who was there for the
> process.
>
> > Your view of OSD 10 is simply not correct. The record would not
> > reflect consideration of attribution notices and OSD 10,
>
> I see no evidence anyone considered #OSD 10 in relation to the APL at all.
[...]

It would have been hard for anyone to do so since OSD 10 was created
after the APL was approved.

The APL can be grandfathered in, but any new derivative of the APL
should be careful to satisfy OSD 10.  Certainly it is NOT sufficient
to just say, "Well the APL was approved, we should be as well."

Cheers,
Ben