I have noticed that a lot of the discussion occurring is on section 7 of the GPL license; so I feel the need to alleviate those concerns and tell you outright that what I am considering for my SaaS Startup.
I.e.: FreeBSD license with two added provisions: 1. "Badgeware" (as you call it) requirement, i.e.: that every page of the site and mobile-apps' have a copyright area which contains: "Powered by [project name](github.com/projectname)" or "Powered by [new project name]() a fork of [project name](github.com/projectname" 2. A carefully worded closure of the: "ASP loophole" Given these conditions, which license is most aligns to my requirements? - And would it be considered "open-source"? On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Rick Moen <r...@linuxmafia.com> wrote: > > Minor correction (proving that I shouldn't post to these subjects in a > hurry while working on other things): > > > Getting back to what I was groggily trying to say last night: My sense > > is that OSI's approval of CPAL back in '07 was motivated in part by a > > perception that a modest badgeware requirement was one arguably > > reasonable method for giving reciprocal licensing enforcement power in > > ASP/SaaS deployment, and that Socialtext's CPAL proposal wasn't so > > extreme in its requirements as to preemptively kill third-party > > commercial competition the way badgeware licensing usually does (the OSD > > #3 concern I cited). > ^^ > > Intended reference was OSD #6 (discrimination against fields of > endeavour). > > Creative steps to cripple commercial reuse rights for others are a > recurring theme, I notice. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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