[License-discuss] CPOL 1.02

[Luis Villa]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel at red-bean.com> wrote:
> 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>

Usually :) It gets complicated for lawyers to contact non-lawyers
about legal issues - generally unadvisable.

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