[License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE

Fri Jun 17 16:34:21 UTC 2016

Hi Matthias,

Thanks for your questions.

Zentao Public License(ZPL) is for end users using applications software
which has GUI or B/S interface. It does not apply to basic software, such
as database,  system management tools.

ZPL defines what you can/not do as a developer/end user/developer who
developed based on existing software. The developer can keep the
badgeware，while the developers who develop based on existing software can
add their own badgeware and end users can use the software for free.

Fei

>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Matthias Merkel* <moritz30 at moritz30.de>
> Date: Friday, June 17, 2016
> Subject: [License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE
> To: "license-review at opensource.org" <license-review at opensource.org>
>
>
> "For Matthias' question, the answer is YES.The Item 2.4 from our license
> works like badgeware."
> Please exactly explain how, where and when to credit. That'll be
> important, because software may also run in enviroments without gui.
>
>
> ---- On Fr, 17 Jun 2016 03:42:59 +0200 *feiteng854 at gmail.com *wrote ----
>
> Dear License Review Board,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the questions and comments.
>
> For Matthias' question, the answer is YES.*The Item 2.4 from our license
> works like badgeware.*
>
> For Carlo's comments,
>
> 1. " While I still don't like this license at all, I can only spot a few
> flaws now:
> QingDao Nature Easy
> Soft Network Technology Co,LTD has the final authority to interpret the
> terms of the agreement.
>
> This is quite strange. A Judge should have this final authority. Relying
> on an external source for defining the legal content of a license is
> heterodox at best. The license must be self-fulfilling (except for the
> inevitable external legal environment)."
>
>
>           *By authority, it means that our company has the final right to
> interpret the terms of the agreement. If the word is not appropriate, it is
> OK to change it. *
>
>
>
>          2. "Additionally, the reference to "I" looks suspicious: who is
> this "I"? Who is this "I" for downstream modifications? Are downstream
> copyright holders excluded from the same rights as the original? "
>
>
>           *The "I" has been defined as the developer/author of the
> softwareat the very beginning of the agreement, "Preface
> ...__________(Hereinafter referred to as " the software) developed by
> _________( hereinafter refferred to "I")".*
>
>           3. "I also have reservations, which I think I have already
> expressed, against
>
> 4.4 You must notify your users clearly that your service is based on the
> software
> when you use it to build your online service.
>
> although it seems better worded than what my memory reports."
>
>
>
> *It is the first time that the request has been post through to your list
> and all the comments have been received for the very first time. Therefore,
> what you have already expressed must not have been received. If you don't
> mind, could you please express your concerns again? *
>         4. " Finally, there is a list of "things" a user/developer can do.
> I am sure there has been effort in be all-inclusive, but is it the complete
> list or something outside would be permissible? Some read as very specific
> to a given field-of-use, while other fields of use can be discriminated. "
>
>
>          *It is not the intension to write a all-inclusive agreement and
> there is nothing out of the agreement to be permissible. This agreement is
> for products with GUI/Web interface. The reason there are a list of
> "things" in this agreement is that quite often a lot of users had asked
> what they can do with the software. Based on their feedback, it is decided
> to list what they can or cannot do with it. *
>
>
>         By the way, the email has been held for list moderators's
> approval again when I tried to reply Matthias' email. This is what has been
> happening to our request-for-review emails before. Therefore, I am putting
> both Matthias and Carlo in CC, just in case.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Fei
>
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Fei Teng <feiteng854 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, it works like badgeware, so it is needed if the software is modified.
>
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016, Matthias Merkel <moritz30 at moritz30.de> wrote:
>
> "2.4 You or your company/organization must keep all the indications of the
> software when using it. None of the indications can be removed, hidden or
> obscured in any way."
> Sounds like badgeware. Is that also needed if the software is modified?
>
>
> ---- On Do, 16 Jun 2016 03:00:45 +0200 *crystaltoffee at hotmail.com *wrote
> ----
>
> Dear License Review Board,
>
>
> I am writing to request the approval of ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE. The
> required information is as followed.
>
>       1. the *submission type* and *license name* in subject field (to
> ensure proper tracking) :
>
>    1.
>
>
>    ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE For Approval
>
>
>    2. a plaintext copy of the license （see attachment）
>
>
>    3. the supporting data listed below (as appropriate for the type of submission)
>
>
>
>
> *      -**Rationale:*
>
>        The new license clearly defines that indications of the software cannot be altered or removed in any way, so that it will make a balance in protecting the interests of the original author and maintaining business cooperation.
>
>       *-**Distinguish:*
>
>        ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE clarifies the specific indications of the software that should be changed or removed from the software, such as notes, texts, pictures and links showing copyright of the software.
>
> *       -**Proliferation category:*
>
>         Other/Miscellaneous licenses
>
>
>
>
>    1.
>
>    a link to earlier public discussions (if any)
>
>
>        http://zpl.pub/page/faq.html
>
>
> I am copying Richard as in Cc just in case that I can NOT post the request to the mailing list, which has happened before, and Richard has been helping me with this license review.
>
>
> Thank you all.
>
>
> Fei Teng
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20160617/eb2f0511/attachment.html>