[License-discuss] CPOL 1.02

[Richard Fontana]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 04:32:09PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> The CPOL 1.02 license was discussed on this list in 2009. [1, and see
> attached.) As far as I can tell from reading my old emails and reviewing the
> OSI license list, it was never approved by OSI. Richard Fontana said this about
> it on 10/5/2009:
> 
>  
> 
> This license recently came to our attention at Red Hat. The CPOL fails to meet
> the Open Source Definition (and Free Software Definition) in numerous ways.
> I've already been in contact with people at codeproject.com about this.
> 
>  
> 
> Yet Black Duck reports that this is the 8th most popular open source license.

Heh. The CPOL was just being discussed in the legal track I'm in at
LFCollab today. I reiterated my view that it is not a free software or
open source license and that no one should use any code under it. :)

- RF





> [1]
> 
>  
> 
> Popularity isn't all that matters!
> 
>  
> 
> /Larry
> 
>  
> 
> [1] http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx
> 
> [2] http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Lawrence Rosen
> 
> Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> 
> 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> 
> Cell: 707-478-8932
> 
>  
> 

> Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:44:06 -0700
> From: Joe Bell <joe.bell at prodeasystems.com>
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: First Post / Question Regarding CPOL 1.02
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
> 
> Hi all:
> 
>  
> 
> This is my first post to this particular discussion group - please be gentle
> and refer me to a FAQ if I egregiously violated any list rules. 
> 
>  
> 
> My question is regarding the Code Project Open License (http://
> www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx) 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.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Joe
> 
>  
> 
> 
> This message is confidential to Prodea Systems, Inc unless otherwise indicated
> or apparent from its nature. This message is directed to the intended recipient
> only, who may be readily determined by the sender of this message and its
> contents. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an
> employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended
> recipient:(a)any dissemination or copying of this message is strictly
> prohibited; and(b)immediately notify the sender by return message and destroy
> any copies of this message in any form(electronic, paper or otherwise) that you
> have.The delivery of this message and its information is neither intended to be
> nor constitutes a disclosure or waiver of any trade secrets, intellectual
> property, attorney work product, or attorney-client communications. The
> authority of the individual sending this message to legally bind Prodea Systems
> is neither apparent nor implied,and must be independently verified.
> 

> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss