[License-discuss] CPOL 1.02

[Luis Villa]

We should draw straws to see who has to contact them and help them clean up
their licensing mess.
On Apr 4, 2012 4:48 PM, "Richard Fontana" <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20120404/acac582e/attachment.html>