[License-discuss] CPOL
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote: > Same. I used it this way today when I was curious if the Code Project > Open License was OSI approved. It's not I don't think it has ever been submitted. I have not analyzed from an OSI perspective, but I've heard some people who have say they don't think it would pass. If anyone here has contacts there, feel free to pass them along off-list. > but is on the osrc top 20 list - I > dunno if that is a bug or a feature...I assume there is some weird history > given that the OSI is "below the fold" on their resource page and grouped > with SPDX (who?). Which resource page? OSRC? CPOL? Luis ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
Re: [License-discuss] CPOL 1.02
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > Luis Villa 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? > > 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" 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 >> > 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 > License-discuss@ope
Re: [License-discuss] CPOL 1.02
Luis Villa 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? -K >On Apr 4, 2012 4:48 PM, "Richard Fontana" 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 >> 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
Re: [License-discuss] CPOL 1.02
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" 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 > > 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
Re: [License-discuss] CPOL 1.02
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 > 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
Re: [License-discuss] CPOL 1.02
"Lawrence Rosen" writes: >Popularity isn't all that matters! Absolutely agreed. It's one factor of many that should be evaluated. Being OSI-approved is another factor -- and a required one :-). ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
[License-discuss] CPOL 1.02
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. [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 --- Begin Message --- 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. --- End Message --- ___ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
