[License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE

[Fei Teng]

It is OSI standard that license should cover all kinds of software. It is
our belief that a for-one-specific-situation license is necessary, because
a lot has changed in software.

ZPL clearly stated that the developers could decide what and where their
badges should be. It is "when using it" situation,  (2.4) "You or your
company/organization must keep all the indications of the software".  In
this way, ZPL is flexible. They can choose not to keep their badge anywhere
of the interface. If so, there would be no concern of keeping badgeware.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, Matthias Merkel <moritz30 at moritz30.de> wrote:

> Yes. I think attribution licenses are most of it. Badgeware is to limited.
> Alsonhe wrote that the license is only for software running on graphical
> enviroments. A OSI-Approved license should cover all kinds of software made
> by all kinds of developers who wabt to use it.
>
>
> ---- On Di, 21 Jun 2016 20:56:32 +0200 * fontana at opensource.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','fontana at opensource.org');> * wrote ----
>
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','License-review at opensource.org');> <mailto:
> License-review at opensource.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','License-review at opensource.org');>>
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at opensource.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','License-review at opensource.org');>
> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160623/575cd325/attachment.html>