Subject: Re: Badgeware licences, Take Two (was: Ethical Restriction)
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 21:45:27 -0800

Quoting Dave Rosenberg (daverosenberg@gmail.com):

> Let's just be clear about what exactly was said about the "license's
> main point." You are taking the quote out of context in order to make
> your argument. What I was specifically talking about was the method
> that would allow users wanting to use Mule in a commercial product
> with no attribution.

Which is just a fancy way of saying "If you need to avoid the badge for your
commercial use, then you'll need to negotiate a separate licence with us"
(http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2006/11/licensing_in_lo.html)
-- thus (precisely) my point.  And it's interesting that all you have to
say about the FAQ is to suggest that it's somehow up to _us_ to do
something about it.

Whether your FAQ entry is "correct" or not is beside my point:  It seems
reasonable to believe it reflects what MuleSource wants people to think.
Thus, again, my point.


Also, come to think of it, the purpose of this mailing list isn't to
help vendors improve their online documentation.  It's to evaluate
submitted licences from aspiring open-source publishers, to determine if
they can be certified as "open source".  

Your firm, not to put too fine a point on it, has been going around for
some time telling the public you're "open source".  Is there some
reason why you are unable to submit your licence?  Selective finger
malfunction, perhaps?  If not, when can we expect to see it -- and are
you going to suspend your public claims of being "open source" until
it's approved?

> In no circumstance did I say that the license was designed to force people
> to pay.

This is the Ben Tilly line:  They're not UNABLE to use the badgeware
version in commerce.  They're juse UNWILLING.  Quoting your InfoWorld entry:
"My answer was simple. You make a deal with us for a commercial license
and then you do whatever you want."

Right.  Exactly.


> The license is there to protect our IP. 

MuleSource uses this phrase a lot -- including in yesterday's
announcement of the new badgeware provision.  But it doesn't mean
anything.  Your "IP" (copyright title) is protected (in the USA) by 17
U.S.C., the Copyright Act.  It is neither more nor less protected with
the badgeware clause.  

Do you think the "IP" (copyright title) in Firefox (real MPL 1.1) is up
for grabs?  Try creating and redistributing a proprietary, binary-only
fork, and see how long the court summons takes.

-- 
Cheers,           "You know, I've gone to a lot of psychics, and they've told me
Rick Moen         a lot of different things, but not one of them has ever told me
rick@linuxmafia.com      'You are an undercover policewoman, here to arrest me.'"
                                          -- New York City undercover policewoman