[License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE

Fei Teng feiteng854 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 04:09:39 UTC 2016


It is the situation happening in China that a lot of the developers who
develop based on the existing system remove the signs/badges of the
original system and claim it is totally their idea/software. The code of
how to get rid of the log of a web product is easy to be found online.

The license we use when developing our product is LGPL which does not
clearly define whether sign/logo/badge can be changed/removed. It does NOT
define whether the sign of a product is part of the source code or
trademark.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016, Matthias Merkel <moritz30 at moritz30.de
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','moritz30 at moritz30.de');>> wrote:

> How can an end user remove the badge if he/she is not a developer? Or do
> you mean developers who publish the modifications of the software?
>
>
> ---- On Di, 21 Jun 2016 05:29:43 +0200 * feiteng854 at gmail.com * wrote ----
>
> Zentao Public License was written based on the actual issues we met when
> we were developing our product. Those issues include,
>
> 1. End users do NOT know what they can/not do with our product
> 2. Developers who develop based on existing system do NOT know what they
> can/not do with our product
> 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
>
> Based on the issues mentioned above, we decided to draft ZPL. We also
> thought that other open source developers could used it too and that will
> need an organization/company to interpret the agreement/license. Therefore,
> the statement was made at the beginning of the license.  This statement is
> temporary and could be removed if osi would approve our ZPL.
>
> On Sunday, June 19, 2016, Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org> wrote:
>
> On 06/16/2016 09:42 PM, Fei Teng wrote:
>
> > 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. /
>
> How do you see this working in practice? Suppose the ZPL is used by some
> developer for software your company has had no involvement in developing
> or using. Or suppose your company ceases to exist but the ZPL continues
> to be used.
>
>
> Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160621/35725dbf/attachment.html>


More information about the License-review mailing list