[License-review] Approval request for ZENTAO PUBLIC LICENSE

[Fei Teng]

Sure. Here is the link

www.zentao.pm

On Thursday, June 23, 2016, Matthias Merkel <moritz30 at moritz30.de> wrote:

> For things like that there's the legacy approval, isn't it? Could you send
> us a link to one of your software?
>
>
> ---- On Do, 23 Jun 2016 15:08:25 +0200 * feiteng854 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','feiteng854 at gmail.com');> * wrote ----
>
> Thanks for sharing your point of view.
>
> ZPL has been applied in three of our products and approved by hundreds of
> thousands users of ours. It has made our team to be able to keep updating
> our software and other developers to benefit from our open source software.
>
> With the spirit of sharing and respect to OSI, we submitted our request
> for approval. But apparently, there is a huge divergence between you who
> has dozens of years experience dealing with open source and us. It might
> seems to you that what we are doing is not open source, which is OK to us,
> because we are more practical and value our users' approval.
>
> Thank you all for your time and advice.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 23, 2016, Carlo Piana <osi-review at piana.eu> wrote:
>
> Open source spirit and open source law are the same.
>
> The spirit lies in licenses that abide by the principles. If we relaxed
> the principles, the spirit would go. Nothing is absolute, and a rule of
> reason can be applied. But there are limits, like field-of-endeavour
> limitations, which is a no-no. A piece of software whose source code cannot
> be used in certain fields or in certain combinations, is not open enough.
> It's not a bad thing, but it's not open source and cannot receive approval.
>
> Therefore, to obtain the badge of being open source, the license shall
> adapt to the rules, not the rules to the license, for practical reasons.
> Had we (collectively) acted for practical reasons some 20 or 25 (alas,
> actually more than 30!) years ago, open source would not exist now. Most of
> people who knew what was workable taught us that open source was a garage
> developers' toy, if not a cancer.
>
> My opinion. Others might feel different.
>
> All the best
>
> Carlo
>
>
> On 23/06/2016 08:45, Fei Teng wrote:
>
> As time goes by, everything is changing and changed. Different situation
> requires different license. Changes might happen to badgeware license in
> the future.
>
> In China, a lot of developers who love open source eventually stopped
> updating their software because of other developers' violation of the
> common rules and disrespect the open source spirit.  If this keeps
> happening, it is harmful to the whip open source community.
>
> Is it to follow all the old rules which is detrimental to open source
> spirit more important? Or to take actions to protect open source spirit
> more important?
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 22, 2016, Josh berkus <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
> https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing listLicense-review at opensource.orghttps://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/20160623/76499910/attachment.html>