[License-discuss] CPOL 1.02

[Karl Fogel]

Luis Villa <luis at tieguy.org> writes:
>We should draw straws to see who has to contact them and help them
>clean up their licensing mess. 

Isn't there some rule that whoever proposes drawing straws automatically
has drawn the short one?

<ducks>

-K


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