[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?

Is there a debian-legal position on "Appropriate Legal Notices" 
aspect of the GPLv3.  Including 5(d) and 7(b); OR, alternatively, 
the OSI approved Common Public Attribution License ("CPAL").

I'm asking because having appropriate credit really resonates 
with with those in my organization who are getting behind 
releasing our entire medical informatics system (and modules).
So, this could be done under GPL /w ALN or under the CPAL.

In particular, what of SugarCRM's use of this mechanism?

 * The interactive user interfaces in modified source and object code
 * of this program must display Appropriate Legal Notices, as required
 * Section 5 of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3.
 * In accordance with Section 7(b) of the GNU Affero General Public
 License version 3,
 * these Appropriate Legal Notices must retain the display of the
 "Powered by
 * SugarCRM" logo. If the display of the logo is not reasonably feasible
 * technical reasons, the Appropriate Legal Notices must display the
 * "Powered by SugarCRM".

Perhaps a bit more strongly worded than the GPL permits, however, 
it is consistent with CPAL's language in section 14.



Reply to: