Re: Thoughts on GPL's Appropriate Legal Notices? or the CPAL?
"Clark C. Evans" <email@example.com>
> 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?
I don't know of anywhere that "Powered by SugarCRM" is a legal notice.
Does anyone? What legal effect does it have?
So, I don't believe SugarCRM's interpretation of ALN to include their
slogan and logo is acceptable. As you can read near the end of
section 0, the ALN is basically the copyright notice and warranty
disclaimer. Therefore, SugarCRM's current terms would seem to
include an additional restriction, contradicting section 10 as
explained by section 7, meaning no-one other than the licensor can
distribute it. Boo!
I don't like CPAL - I see Francesco Poli has offered links to past
discussions. I wonder what the reasoning of the failed OSI was.
I think requiring attribution is fine in an ALN and requesting people
give you credit with a logo would be a good idea, but trying to force
Hope that informs,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct