First Post / Question Regarding CPOL 1.02

Chuck Swiger chuck at
Mon Oct 5 20:02:32 UTC 2009

Hi, Joe--

On Oct 5, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Joe Bell wrote:
> My question is regarding the Code Project Open License ( 
> ) and whether or not anyone has done a “rigorous” analysis of it - I  
> did notice that it isn’t an OSI-approved open source license, but  
> the fact is that it does cover quite a variety of useful C# and .NET  
> projects on the Code Project website and I’d be interested to learn  
> other’s opinions on any gotchas and/or loopholes in this license.

Welcome.  We haven't done a formal review of that license, as we  
normally only consider licenses which have been submitted for review  
by their authors as part of the normal process.

Just offhand, it's not compliant with the OSD #1 due to clause 5d:  
"You agree not to sell, lease, or rent any part of the Work. This does  
not restrict you from including the Work or any part of the Work  
inside a larger software distribution that itself is being sold. The  
Work by itself, though, cannot be sold, leased or rented."

Clause 5f also runs into problems with OSD #5 & #6; for example, the  
author might feel that using the software to develop a weapon is  
immoral, but the OSD does not permit the license to discriminate  
against that or any field of endeavor.  Or the author might feel that  
using the software on a website which promotes Hinduism (or Judaism,  
Christianity, etc) is immoral....

Such clauses in a license-- ie, forbidding one to use the licensed  
material for illegal purposes-- are generally not useful, as local law  
determines what is licit or not, and terms in a license cannot  
override that anyway.


More information about the License-discuss mailing list