[License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE

[Matthias Merkel]

"Attribution Information (as defined below) must occur on the graphic user interface employed by the end user to access such Covered Code (which may include display on a splash screen), if any." - That is the point. IF ANY. So it can be used on environments where such graphical attribution isn't possible to provide. 

---- On Di, 21 Jun 2016 21:19:15 +0200 fontana at opensource.org wrote ----

Possibly. One problem is that an earlier incarnation of the OSI approved
a license that would probably have to be considered a badgeware license:
https://opensource.org/licenses/CPAL-1.0

This license was drafted to address concerns that were raised in the OSI
community regarding earlier badgeware licenses. Nonetheless I think it
fits your definition of badgeware.

Richard


On 06/21/2016 03:01 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:
> Is it worth putting something on the OSD pages specific to this issue? Seems like badgeware (although one probably ought to define what that is -- I think of it as something that prevents removal of any identification information in the code other than copyright and change notices) violates OSD 4 (and maybe OSD 3), but saying that explicitly on the OSD page might prevent people from thinking that badgeware licenses are allowed.
> 
> McCoy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fontana
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 11:57 AM
> To: license-review at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE
> 
> I also agree with Josh - the OSI should not be approving badgeware licenses. Now, maybe there's some argument for some narrow form of badgeware condition being acceptable (based on historical precedent) but looking at this license, section 2.4 (which I think I didn't read closely before):
> 
> "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."
> 
> While worded somewhat unclearly I would say this goes way beyond any quasi-badgeware-like requirement the OSI has ever approved. So my view is this license must be rejected in its present form.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> 
> On 06/21/2016 02:48 PM, Matthias Merkel wrote:
>> I already tried to say to him. You're right.
>>
>>
>> ---- On Di, 21 Jun 2016 20:46:42 +0200 *josh at postgresql.org * 
>> wrote ----
>>
>> On 06/20/2016 08:29 PM, Fei Teng wrote:
>> > 3. A lot of end users removed the badge of our product
>> > 4. A lot of developers who develop based on our product removed the
>> > badge of our product and they do NOT share their code with us
>>
>> I thought we weren't approving any badgeware licenses? If that's the
>> case, why are we still talking to Fei Teng?
>>
>> --Josh Berkus
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org <mailto:License-review at opensource.org>
>> 
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> 

_______________________________________________
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/20160621/15830f76/attachment.html>