On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 2:59 PM Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote:
There has been a long history of people asking for help from > license-discuss in drafting licences to implement poorly considered > ideas. That is true, but not yet applicable. So far we have only seen a request to discuss the idea, and we have discussed it. No request to draft a license has been forthcoming. > The crowning irony of that incident was soon to follow: None of the > badgeware firms (nor, as far as I can tell, anyone else) actually used > CPAL. Per WP, Zimbra (which has been sold several times) now has a GPL 2.0 only backend and a CPAL front end (in addition to its proprietary license), so perhaps we did not sacrifice ourselves entirely in vain. Sugar's open-source version has gone from MPL+AAL to GPLv3 to AGPLv3, but since the announcement of 7.0 (2013) they are no longer maintaining it. There are. however, several forks. > Amazon/ICE and BP (ex-British Petroleum) Very simply, people who have strong emotions about these companies are usually against them, whereas people have strong emotions both for and against RMS. Using him as an example would just invite even more Sturm und Drang. John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: WELCOME TO <censored> DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
