We should draw straws to see who has to contact them and help them clean up their licensing mess. On Apr 4, 2012 4:48 PM, "Richard Fontana" <rfont...@redhat.com> 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 <joe.b...@prodeasystems.com> > > To: license-discuss@opensource.org > > 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 > > License-discuss@opensource.org > > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org > http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
