[License-discuss] License which requires watermarking? (Attribution Provision)
rfontana at redhat.com
Wed Dec 19 06:02:37 UTC 2012
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be
> intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.
To be fair, and to spread the blame around, the FSF's decision that
CPAL is a free software license was also wrongly decided, as was the
Fedora Project's decision that CPAL was free for purposes of Fedora
(which appears to be my fault -- sorry Tom!). I believe Debian treats
CPAL as DFSG-free but whether this was a wrong decision depends on
whether a decision was actually made, I suppose.
More information about the License-discuss