[License-discuss] CPAL 1.0 License | Badge-ware | Clarification

[Richard Fontana]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:
>
> FSF’s definition of what is a free software license includes badgeware licenses (because such licenses still meet the 4 software freedoms), but they also do not recommend use of badgeware licenses.  See the comment on the 4-clause BSD:
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD

I wouldn't consider 4-clause BSD to be badgeware. Badgeware, to me,
refers to a license that requires display of some sort of
sufficiently-annoying branding or graphical attribution in the user
interface of the software.

FSF has recognized some arguably-badgeware licenses as free software
licenses, such as CPAL.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#CPAL

Richard


>
>
>
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Henrik Ingo
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2020 7:52 AM
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] CPAL 1.0 License | Badge-ware | Clarification
>
>
>
>
>
> The fact that FSF also recognizes CPAL as a free software license is an interesting addition to this argument.
>
>
>
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org