On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote: > Luis Villa <[email protected]> writes: >>We should draw straws to see who has to contact them and help them >>clean up their licensing mess. > > Isn't there some rule that whoever proposes drawing straws automatically > has drawn the short one? > > <ducks>
Usually :) It gets complicated for lawyers to contact non-lawyers about legal issues - generally unadvisable. > -K > > >>On Apr 4, 2012 4:48 PM, "Richard Fontana" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 04, 2012 at 04:32:09PM -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote: >> > The CPOL 1.02 license was discussed on this list in 2009. [1, >> and see >> > attached.) As far as I can tell from reading my old emails and >> reviewing the >> > OSI license list, it was never approved by OSI. Richard Fontana >> said this about >> > it on 10/5/2009: >> > >> > >> > >> > This license recently came to our attention at Red Hat. The CPOL >> fails to meet >> > the Open Source Definition (and Free Software Definition) in >> numerous ways. >> > I've already been in contact with people at codeproject.com >> about this. >> > >> > >> > >> > Yet Black Duck reports that this is the 8th most popular open >> source license. >> >> Heh. The CPOL was just being discussed in the legal track I'm in >> at >> LFCollab today. I reiterated my view that it is not a free >> software or >> open source license and that no one should use any code under it. >> :) >> >> - RF >> >> >> >> >> >> > [1] >> > >> > >> > >> > Popularity isn't all that matters! >> > >> > >> > >> > /Larry >> > >> > >> > >> > [1] http://www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx >> > >> > [2] http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Lawrence Rosen >> > >> > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) >> > >> > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 >> > >> > Cell: 707-478-8932 >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:44:06 -0700 >> > From: Joe Bell <[email protected]> >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: First Post / Question Regarding CPOL 1.02 >> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 >> > >> > Hi all: >> > >> > >> > >> > This is my first post to this particular discussion group - >> please be gentle >> > and refer me to a FAQ if I egregiously violated any list rules. >> > >> > >> > >> > My question is regarding the Code Project Open License (http:// >> > www.codeproject.com/info/cpol10.aspx) and whether or not anyone >> has done a >> > “rigorous” analysis of it - I did notice that it isn’t an >> OSI-approved open >> > source license, but the fact is that it does cover quite a >> variety of useful C# >> > and .NET projects on the Code Project website and I’d be >> interested to learn >> > other’s opinions on any gotchas and/or loopholes in this >> license. >> > >> > >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > Joe >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > This message is confidential to Prodea Systems, Inc unless >> otherwise indicated >> > or apparent from its nature. This message is directed to the >> intended recipient >> > only, who may be readily determined by the sender of this >> message and its >> > contents. If the reader of this message is not the intended >> recipient, or an >> > employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the >> intended >> > recipient:(a)any dissemination or copying of this message is >> strictly >> > prohibited; and(b)immediately notify the sender by return >> message and destroy >> > any copies of this message in any form(electronic, paper or >> otherwise) that you >> > have.The delivery of this message and its information is neither >> intended to be >> > nor constitutes a disclosure or waiver of any trade secrets, >> intellectual >> > property, attorney work product, or attorney-client >> communications. The >> > authority of the individual sending this message to legally bind >> Prodea Systems >> > is neither apparent nor implied,and must be independently >> verified. >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > License-discuss mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >> >>_______________________________________________ >>License-discuss mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
