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 requir
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com):
> Actually, section 7 of GPLv3 was intended to allow a limited form of
> badgeware (as well as certain other kinds of restrictions). But the
> example cited by the original poster:
> http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx
> goes well beyond what t
Quoting Richard Fontana (rfont...@redhat.com):
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:34:33AM -0500, Richard Fontana wrote:
> > I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be
> > intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided.
>
> To be fair, and to spread the blame around
Quoting John Cowan (co...@mercury.ccil.org):
> You should add this to the KB; I did check there, but with no success.
OK, I'll see about that.
> > http://linuxgazette.net/159/misc/lg/sugarcrm_and_badgeware_licensing_again.html
>
> Offline, alas.
It's reachable now. I'll soon be mirroring it o
4 matches
Mail list logo
