Subject: Re: openbravo license: another variant of the MPL
From: Michael Tiemann <tiemann@opensource.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:53:34 -0400
Fri, 29 Apr 2011 08:53:34 -0400
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:17 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> Karl Fogel scripsit:
>
> > Thoughts welcome... badgeware is a slippery slope.  I haven't seen all
> > the past discussions on it, but my tentative feeling is we need to be
> > very careful that attribution requirements do not become burdensome,
> > either technically or from a business/publicity perspective.  OBPL seems
> > to fail at least the first test, I think.
>
> The problem with badgeware licenses is that they prevent people from
> using parts of the code in other kinds of software.  The CPAL is careful
> to speak only of showing the logo "if possible".
>

Very true.  I had forgotten that part of the discussion/debate, and it is
indeed very important.  Thanks for reminding me!

M


On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:17 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
Karl Fogel scripsit:

> Thoughts welcome... badgeware is a slippery slope.  I haven't seen all
> the past discussions on it, but my tentative feeling is we need to be
> very careful that attribution requirements do not become burdensome,
> either technically or from a business/publicity perspective.  OBPL seems
> to fail at least the first test, I think.

The problem with badgeware licenses is that they prevent people from
using parts of the code in other kinds of software.  The CPAL is careful
to speak only of showing the logo "if possible".

Very true.  I had forgotten that part of the discussion/debate, and it is indeed very important.  Thanks for reminding me!

M