<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>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:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'>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. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Yet Black Duck reports that this is the 8th most popular open source license. [1]<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Popularity isn't all that matters!<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>/Larry<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>[1] <a href="http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx">http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx</a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>[2] <a href="http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/">http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/</a> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt'>Lawrence Rosen<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt'>Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt'>3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.0pt'>Cell: 707-478-8932<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>