<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html><head><meta content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"></head><body >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?
<div id="message"></div>
<br id="br3">
<div id="signature"></div>
<div id="content"><blockquote><br> ---- On Di, 21 Jun 2016 05:29:43 +0200 <b> feiteng854@gmail.com </b> wrote ----<br><br><div><font size="2"><span style="">Zentao Public License was written based on the actual issues we met when we were developing our product. Those issues include,<span></span></span></font><div><font size="2"><span style=""><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="">1. End users do NOT know what they can/not do with our product</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="">2. Developers who develop based on existing system do NOT know what they can/not do with our product</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="">3. A lot of end users removed the badge of our product</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="">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</span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style=""><br></span></font></div><div><font size="2"><span style="">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.</span></font></div><br>On Sunday, June 19, 2016, Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:fontana@opensource.org" target="_blank">fontana@opensource.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex;border-left: 1.0px rgb(204,204,204) solid;padding-left: 1.0ex;">On 06/16/2016 09:42 PM, Fei Teng wrote:<br> <br> > For Carlo's comments,<br> ><br> > 1. " While I still don't like this license at all, I can only spot a few<br> > flaws now:<br> > QingDao Nature Easy<br> > Soft Network Technology Co,LTD has the final authority to interpret the<br> > terms of the agreement.<br> ><br> > This is quite strange. A Judge should have this final authority. Relying<br> > on an external source for defining the legal content of a license is<br> > heterodox at best. The license must be self-fulfilling (except for the<br> > inevitable external legal environment)."<br> ><br> ><br> > /By authority, it means that our company has the final right<br> > to interpret the terms of the agreement. If the word is not appropriate,<br> > it is OK to change it. /<br> <br> How do you see this working in practice? Suppose the ZPL is used by some<br> developer for software your company has had no involvement in developing<br> or using. Or suppose your company ceases to exist but the ZPL continues<br> to be used.<br> <br> <br> Richard<br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> License-review mailing list<br> <a target="_blank">License-review@opensource.org</a><br> <a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br> </blockquote> _______________________________________________<br>License-review mailing list<br><a href="mailto:License-review@opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@opensource.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review</a><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>