<!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 >1. I think you'd have better chances if you limit the license to a powered by text or a notice on startup.<br>2. Maybe a propriatary license would be better in that case. I love open source and most of my software is open source but there are cases where propriatary licenses are better. If you don't publish your source code it's harder to remove such branding.
<div id="message"></div>
<br id="br3">
<div id="signature"></div>
<div id="content"><blockquote><br> ---- On Do, 23 Jun 2016 04:12:04 +0200 <b> feiteng854@gmail.com </b> wrote ----<br><br><div>It is true that people who don't play by rules would possibly break rules again. <div><br></div><div><font size="2"><span style=""><i>We live in a different country and dealing with different situations. </i></span></font>As universally known, not like the west where copyright has been well awared and protected by laws and people try to respect that, it still needs a lot of improvement in regards to copyright here in China. </div><div><div><br></div><div>If it is not written in the license that logos should not be removed so to respect developers' work, there will be no proof that they should abide by it even taken to the court. </div><div><br></div><div>ZPL indeed cannot prevent other developers stop removing our logos from our product, but at least we have tried to define that logos should not be removed.</div><div><br></div><div><br>On Thursday, June 23, 2016, Josh berkus <<a href="mailto:josh@postgresql.org" target="_blank">josh@postgresql.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 06/22/2016 05:42 PM, Fei Teng wrote:<br> > Yes.<br> ><br> > What I meant in my previous email should be "The code of how to get ride<br> > of the LOGO of a web product …". Sorry about the typo.<br> ><br> > It is not only the copyright headers are removed, but also other<br> > signs/statement on the interface. For example, if someone used<br> > Wordpress, there should be "powered by Wordpress" left on the page.<br> > However, this is not happening to us. Such statement were quite<br> > often removed by the developers who used our product.<br> <br> Wordpress does not require such a logo. People include it voluntarily.<br> <br> Regardless, if developers are removing the copyright headers from copies<br> of your code, what makes you think that a new license will make any<br> difference? If people are willing to violate one license, they'll<br> violate another. I think taking a few to court would do you a lot more<br> good than changing the license.<br> <br> --Josh Berkus<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></div></div> _______________________________________________<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>