[License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE

[Matthias Merkel]

But maybe an attribution license is better in that case.

---- On Mi, 22 Jun 2016 06:09:39 +0200 feiteng854 at gmail.com wrote ----

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> 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/20160622/fdcffcf9/attachment.html>