Jbilling: Possible unauthorised use of OSI Certified service mark

[Rick Moen]

Dear OSI Board members:

Please see http://www.jbilling.com/?q=node/7&pl=pr 
Note OSI Certified logo.

The company in question, Sapienter Billing Software Corporation, is yet
another Web 2.0 company using MPL 1.1 + an "Exhibit B" badgeware
addendum, calling it "open source".  However, this firm takes one step
further the stance characteristic of Socialtext, SugarCRM, Alfresco,
Zimbra, Qlusters, Jitterbit, Scalix, MuleSource, Dimdim, Agnitas AG,
Openbravo, Emu Software, Terracotta, Cognizo Technologies, ValueCard,
KnowledgeTree, OpenCountry, and 1BizCom, by using OSI's certification
mark in outright violation of OSI's licensing terms -- or, at least, I'd
be surprised to learn otherwise.  Therefore, I'm mentioning that use, in
case corrective action is needed.


I'd suggest Sapienter illustrates why "Exhibit B" licences (though
certainly _not_ badgeware licences generically) have become, in my view,
a serious problem:  

o  Substantively all (probably literally all 19) of the above-listed firms
   already have considerable history of claiming in public to be open source.

o  Few if any mention their licences' lack of OSI approval.  Many
   imply otherwise; one (Sapienter) outright claims approval (as noted).

o  Not ONE has applied for OSI approval, though many are demonstrably
   aware of OSI's approval process.  It's also notable that
   many of their modified-MPL licences were reportedly written by OSI
   General Counsel Mark Radcliffe in his private capacity -- so it's
   doubtful many are unaware.

o  Several of those firms' officers have already turned a deaf ear
   (so far) to suggestions on OSI license-discuss that they make their
   licences comply with OSD#10 ("License Must Be Technology-Neutral" --
   the main problem) by adding "if any" qualifiers to their licences'
   requirements concerning "each user interface screen".

o  At least one, Socialtext, falsely claims in public to use MPL 1.1
   without mentioning its licence modifications at all.[1]

Aside from Sapienter's outreach breach of trademark law, some might
object that OSI simply cannot do anything, to correct this situation.  I
beg to differ, and ask that OSI take appropriate, measured, and
constructive action:  Please consider issuing a formal statement
deploring use of "modified MPL" licenses in circumvention of OSI
scrutiny, and especially their use without clearly disclosing lack of
OSI approval.

No one is denying the value of efforts to close the much-discussed ASP
Loophole through suitable "attribution" clauses that _do_ respect the
OSD and substantively allow code reuse, forking, and other underlying
core notions of open source.  Reasonable people can create licences
containing such clauses and get them approved.  Unfortunately, the
above-cited companies are pointedly eschewing any such effort, thereby
making a mockery of OSI's moral and other authority over open source.  

Please help us of the open source community's desire to help the OSI, by
issuing a clear statement that we can use to enforce open source
standards within this troublesome area.  Thank you.

[1] http://www.socialtext.com/node/88

Sincerely
Rick Moen
(representing himself)

[Ross Mayfield]

You have done a service by pointing out this alleged breach of the OSI
Certified trademark by this corporation.

However, ONLY ONE company that employs a provision similar to the
Generic Attribution Provision has breached this trust.  I believe you
have provided another reason for the GAP to be minded by OSI.

It is inaccurate to say that NOT ONE company has applies for OSI
approval, that is precisely what Socialtext has.  And we clarified
this blog post to say more than we were MPL with an addendum, and have
had the license available our open source wiki since inception.

Deplorable is a strong word in the context of a community, especially
a welcoming one.

Ross

On 12/29/06, Rick Moen <rick@...> wrote:

> Dear OSI Board members:
>
> Please see http://www.jbilling.com/?q=node/7&pl=pr
> Note OSI Certified logo.
>
> The company in question, Sapienter Billing Software Corporation, is yet
> another Web 2.0 company using MPL 1.1 + an "Exhibit B" badgeware
> addendum, calling it "open source".  However, this firm takes one step
> further the stance characteristic of Socialtext, SugarCRM, Alfresco,
> Zimbra, Qlusters, Jitterbit, Scalix, MuleSource, Dimdim, Agnitas AG,
> Openbravo, Emu Software, Terracotta, Cognizo Technologies, ValueCard,
> KnowledgeTree, OpenCountry, and 1BizCom, by using OSI's certification
> mark in outright violation of OSI's licensing terms -- or, at least, I'd
> be surprised to learn otherwise.  Therefore, I'm mentioning that use, in
> case corrective action is needed.
>
>
> I'd suggest Sapienter illustrates why "Exhibit B" licences (though
> certainly _not_ badgeware licences generically) have become, in my view,
> a serious problem:
>
> o  Substantively all (probably literally all 19) of the above-listed firms
>    already have considerable history of claiming in public to be open source.
>
> o  Few if any mention their licences' lack of OSI approval.  Many
>    imply otherwise; one (Sapienter) outright claims approval (as noted).
>
> o  Not ONE has applied for OSI approval, though many are demonstrably
>    aware of OSI's approval process.  It's also notable that
>    many of their modified-MPL licences were reportedly written by OSI
>    General Counsel Mark Radcliffe in his private capacity -- so it's
>    doubtful many are unaware.
>
> o  Several of those firms' officers have already turned a deaf ear
>    (so far) to suggestions on OSI license-discuss that they make their
>    licences comply with OSD#10 ("License Must Be Technology-Neutral" --
>    the main problem) by adding "if any" qualifiers to their licences'
>    requirements concerning "each user interface screen".
>
> o  At least one, Socialtext, falsely claims in public to use MPL 1.1
>    without mentioning its licence modifications at all.[1]
>
> Aside from Sapienter's outreach breach of trademark law, some might
> object that OSI simply cannot do anything, to correct this situation.  I
> beg to differ, and ask that OSI take appropriate, measured, and
> constructive action:  Please consider issuing a formal statement
> deploring use of "modified MPL" licenses in circumvention of OSI
> scrutiny, and especially their use without clearly disclosing lack of
> OSI approval.
>
> No one is denying the value of efforts to close the much-discussed ASP
> Loophole through suitable "attribution" clauses that _do_ respect the
> OSD and substantively allow code reuse, forking, and other underlying
> core notions of open source.  Reasonable people can create licences
> containing such clauses and get them approved.  Unfortunately, the
> above-cited companies are pointedly eschewing any such effort, thereby
> making a mockery of OSI's moral and other authority over open source.
>
> Please help us of the open source community's desire to help the OSI, by
> issuing a clear statement that we can use to enforce open source
> standards within this troublesome area.  Thank you.
>
> [1] http://www.socialtext.com/node/88
>
> Sincerely
> Rick Moen
> (representing himself)
>

--
--
Ross Mayfield
CEO
Socialtext, Inc.
ross.mayfield@...
aim:rossdmayfield
skype:rossmayfield
t. [phone]
f. [phone]
company: http://www.socialtext.com
weblog: http://ross.typepad.com
many-to-many: http://www.corante.com/many
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

[Matthew Flaschen]

Rick Moen wrote:
> o  Few if any mention their licences' lack of OSI approval.  Many
>    imply otherwise; one (Sapienter) outright claims approval (as noted).

I agree that this is a clear violation.  It is likely that they are
aware of the controversy Exhibit B provoked on this list.  However, it
is a violation either way.  The certification page
(http://opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php) notes that "Use of
these marks for software that is not distributed under an OSI approved
license is an infringement of OSI's certification marks and is against
the law."  No one could reasonably assume that a license remains
certified when an arbitrary restriction is added.

> o  At least one, Socialtext, falsely claims in public to use MPL 1.1
>    without mentioning its licence modifications at all.[1]

Not only that, the page you linked to says "Drawing from its Perl
luminary roots, Socialtext releases all its products under a liberal
OSI-compliant Mozilla Public 1.1 license."  This is essentially the same
offense, though it is probably not actionable since "OSI" itself doesn't
seem to be trademarked.

> Aside from Sapienter's outreach breach of trademark law, some might
> object that OSI simply cannot do anything, to correct this situation.  I
> beg to differ, and ask that OSI take appropriate, measured, and
> constructive action:  Please consider issuing a formal statement
> deploring use of "modified MPL" licenses in circumvention of OSI
> scrutiny, and especially their use without clearly disclosing lack of
> OSI approval.

I don't think it's OSI's place to criticize every license that isn't OSI
certified, or even people who inappropriately use the phrase Open
Source.  However, it should take immediate action against those who say
MPL+B is OSI-compliant, at least when a trademark violation is involved.

I am CC'ing this message to sales@... , and I have notified
sourceforge that they are using an unapproved license.

Matthew Flaschen

[Matthew Flaschen]

Ross Mayfield wrote:
> You have done a service by pointing out this alleged breach of the OSI
> Certified trademark by this corporation.
>
> However, ONLY ONE company that employs a provision similar to the
> Generic Attribution Provision has breached this trust.  I believe you
> have provided another reason for the GAP to be minded by OSI.

As per my previous message, Socialtext is also still breaching the trust
by claiming their license is OSI-compliant.  You also falsely claim to
use the MPL on sourceforge, when in fact your license is the Socialtext
Public License, which is not equivalent or compliant.  I don't believe
OSI has to more attention to licenses that are falsely implied (or
outright stated) to be OSI-approved.  That would reward those who ignore
their process, and sometimes the law.

> It is inaccurate to say that NOT ONE company has applies for OSI
> approval, that is precisely what Socialtext has.

You have not applied for approval of your license with Exhibit B, or the
exhibit alone.  It is respectable that you have submitted GAP, but that
is not equivalent to Exhibit B.

> Deplorable is a strong word in the context of a community, especially
> a welcoming one.

OSI is not meant to welcome licenses or products that don't comply with
the OSD, no matter whether they claim to.

Matthew Flaschen

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):

> You have done a service by pointing out this alleged breach of the OSI
> Certified trademark by this corporation.

Thank you for saying that.

> However, ONLY ONE company that employs a provision similar to the
> Generic Attribution Provision has breached this trust.  I believe you
> have provided another reason for the GAP to be minded by OSI.

Hmm, only one company mentioned (out of 20) actually is implementiong
GAP:  Intalio.  Every other one of the other 19 licences I cited,
including the one your company _uses_, i.e., Socialtext Public Licence
1.0.0, seems to me to require a considerably more expansive
implementation of "attribution" than does the GAP clause.

> It is inaccurate to say that NOT ONE company has applies for OSI
> approval, that is precisely what Socialtext has.

Do you mean you have submitted _Socialtext Public Licence 1.0.0_ for OSI
certification?  I attempted to search for any such indication, and found
none.

I respect highly Socialtext's intent in bringing the GAP memo in front
of the OSI Board, but it is my understanding that your firm uses SPL
1.0.0, _not_ MPL + GAP (which Intalio proposes to use), for its
wiki software.  What I said to the Board was, of course, that none of
the 19 firms referenced in my bullet list had submitted the licences
they _use_ (and claim in public to be open source) to the Board for
certification.

Socialtext's commendable intent seems noteworthy despite the fact that
Socialtext substantively ignored the process detailed on
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php by not submitting
a _licence_ at all, but rather a patch that Socialtext evidently wishes
the Board to consider as applied to some unspecified fraction of the 58
existing OSI Certified licence (those with modifiable content).

> And we clarified this blog post to say more than we were MPL with an
> addendum, and have had the license available our open source wiki
> since inception.

Thank you for doing that, retroactively.  Your edit appears to have been
implemented _within the past hour_, I will note.  As you know, I'd
mentioned the misstatement of fact twice on license-discuss twice, the
earlier time having been on Dec. 20, i.e., right in front of you, nine
days ago.

> Deplorable is a strong word in the context of a community, especially
> a welcoming one.

Asking the Board to formally deplore the particular patterns of activity
I cited seems amply merited by the problem those 20 firms have created.
In fact, it strikes me as extremely mild, in the circumstances.  Other
actions, such as yours in sending and posting the GAP memo, should be
praised and are quite appreciated.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen

[Ross Mayfield]

I'm not going to engage in fisking arguments by email.  I might have
lost your prior comments in the 100 fold thread that didn't yield that
much substance against the GAP.

I'll point to a link that should help clarify the steps Socialtext has
taken in good faith, and what we did to clarify our license.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3430

I did amend the blog post tonight to provide a link to the license.

We did not submit the SPL which is consistent with OSD --  and instead
sought to address the general problem we all face through the GAP.
And we would never use the OSI Certified mark unless under an OSI
approved.  That's the point.

Ross


On 12/29/06, Rick Moen <rick@...> wrote:

> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):
>
> > You have done a service by pointing out this alleged breach of the OSI
> > Certified trademark by this corporation.
>
> Thank you for saying that.
>
> > However, ONLY ONE company that employs a provision similar to the
> > Generic Attribution Provision has breached this trust.  I believe you
> > have provided another reason for the GAP to be minded by OSI.
>
> Hmm, only one company mentioned (out of 20) actually is implementiong
> GAP:  Intalio.  Every other one of the other 19 licences I cited,
> including the one your company _uses_, i.e., Socialtext Public Licence
> 1.0.0, seems to me to require a considerably more expansive
> implementation of "attribution" than does the GAP clause.
>
> > It is inaccurate to say that NOT ONE company has applies for OSI
> > approval, that is precisely what Socialtext has.
>
> Do you mean you have submitted _Socialtext Public Licence 1.0.0_ for OSI
> certification?  I attempted to search for any such indication, and found
> none.
>
> I respect highly Socialtext's intent in bringing the GAP memo in front
> of the OSI Board, but it is my understanding that your firm uses SPL
> 1.0.0, _not_ MPL + GAP (which Intalio proposes to use), for its
> wiki software.  What I said to the Board was, of course, that none of
> the 19 firms referenced in my bullet list had submitted the licences
> they _use_ (and claim in public to be open source) to the Board for
> certification.
>
> Socialtext's commendable intent seems noteworthy despite the fact that
> Socialtext substantively ignored the process detailed on
> http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php by not submitting
> a _licence_ at all, but rather a patch that Socialtext evidently wishes
> the Board to consider as applied to some unspecified fraction of the 58
> existing OSI Certified licence (those with modifiable content).
>
> > And we clarified this blog post to say more than we were MPL with an
> > addendum, and have had the license available our open source wiki
> > since inception.
>
> Thank you for doing that, retroactively.  Your edit appears to have been
> implemented _within the past hour_, I will note.  As you know, I'd
> mentioned the misstatement of fact twice on license-discuss twice, the
> earlier time having been on Dec. 20, i.e., right in front of you, nine
> days ago.
>
> > Deplorable is a strong word in the context of a community, especially
> > a welcoming one.
>
> Asking the Board to formally deplore the particular patterns of activity
> I cited seems amply merited by the problem those 20 firms have created.
> In fact, it strikes me as extremely mild, in the circumstances.  Other
> actions, such as yours in sending and posting the GAP memo, should be
> praised and are quite appreciated.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rick Moen
>
>

--
--
Ross Mayfield
CEO
Socialtext, Inc.
ross.mayfield@...
aim:rossdmayfield
skype:rossmayfield
t. [phone]
f. [phone]
company: http://www.socialtext.com
weblog: http://ross.typepad.com
many-to-many: http://www.corante.com/many
this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

[Danese Cooper]

First of all, thank you Rick (and Matthew) for notifying us of an  
apparent violation of our Trademark.  We will follow up on it in the  
New Year.  The OSI Board relies on the participation of the Open  
Source Community to help us police the mark, so this is a huge help.

For the record, the OSI Board is happy that Social Text has taken the  
step of submitting proposed future mods to their license for  
consideration by License-Discuss.  It took a lot of discussion to get  
one of these Attribution License companies to take this step, mostly  
because there was a lot of fear on the part of all those companies  
that they would be misunderstood and harshly criticized by the  
sometimes acerbic License-Discuss community when they were in fact  
trying to do the right thing.

Can we please accept Social Text's actions in the positive light in  
which they were initiated?  In my experience Ross is pretty good  
about making fixes.  I believe him if he says he missed your earlier  
suggestion Rick.  Ross is very aware that their current licensing  
situation is not OSI approved.  He submitted the GAP in hopes that it  
would be discussed (including potential mods to it if necessary) and  
eventually approved so they could move to use it.  We who read  
License-Discuss every day are used to a quick and sometimes  
contradictory discourse...it's a discussion list afterall.  But if  
you're not used to it, it might be difficult to discern what is  
friendly banter and what could be taken as practical, actionable advice.

So, on the subject of attribution and where the line should be drawn  
between acceptable and unacceptable attribution requirements in Open  
Source licenses, we've seen some useful discussion before and since  
Social Text submitted the GAP.  The Board met in December and felt  
that there was still more discussion necessary.  Once everyone gets  
back to work in January, Russ Nelson (who is the OSI Board member  
responsible for the License-Discuss report to the Board) will digest  
the discussion that's happened so far and start asking questions to  
focus the discussion to answer some questions the Board has.

In the meantime, Happy Holidays (which ever ones you celebrate, even  
if its just a few days off from work :-) ) to everyone out there in  
License-Discuss land.

Danese

On Dec 29, 2006, at 10:16 PM, Ross Mayfield wrote:

> I'm not going to engage in fisking arguments by email.  I might have
> lost your prior comments in the 100 fold thread that didn't yield that
> much substance against the GAP.
>
> I'll point to a link that should help clarify the steps Socialtext has
> taken in good faith, and what we did to clarify our license.
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3430
>
> I did amend the blog post tonight to provide a link to the license.
>
> We did not submit the SPL which is consistent with OSD --  and instead
> sought to address the general problem we all face through the GAP.
> And we would never use the OSI Certified mark unless under an OSI
> approved.  That's the point.
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 12/29/06, Rick Moen <rick@...> wrote:
>> Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):
>>
>> > You have done a service by pointing out this alleged breach of  
>> the OSI
>> > Certified trademark by this corporation.
>>
>> Thank you for saying that.
>>
>> > However, ONLY ONE company that employs a provision similar to the
>> > Generic Attribution Provision has breached this trust.  I  
>> believe you
>> > have provided another reason for the GAP to be minded by OSI.
>>
>> Hmm, only one company mentioned (out of 20) actually is implementiong
>> GAP:  Intalio.  Every other one of the other 19 licences I cited,
>> including the one your company _uses_, i.e., Socialtext Public  
>> Licence
>> 1.0.0, seems to me to require a considerably more expansive
>> implementation of "attribution" than does the GAP clause.
>>
>> > It is inaccurate to say that NOT ONE company has applies for OSI
>> > approval, that is precisely what Socialtext has.
>>
>> Do you mean you have submitted _Socialtext Public Licence 1.0.0_  
>> for OSI
>> certification?  I attempted to search for any such indication, and  
>> found
>> none.
>>
>> I respect highly Socialtext's intent in bringing the GAP memo in  
>> front
>> of the OSI Board, but it is my understanding that your firm uses SPL
>> 1.0.0, _not_ MPL + GAP (which Intalio proposes to use), for its
>> wiki software.  What I said to the Board was, of course, that none of
>> the 19 firms referenced in my bullet list had submitted the licences
>> they _use_ (and claim in public to be open source) to the Board for
>> certification.
>>
>> Socialtext's commendable intent seems noteworthy despite the fact  
>> that
>> Socialtext substantively ignored the process detailed on
>> http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.php by not  
>> submitting
>> a _licence_ at all, but rather a patch that Socialtext evidently  
>> wishes
>> the Board to consider as applied to some unspecified fraction of  
>> the 58
>> existing OSI Certified licence (those with modifiable content).
>>
>> > And we clarified this blog post to say more than we were MPL  
>> with an
>> > addendum, and have had the license available our open source wiki
>> > since inception.
>>
>> Thank you for doing that, retroactively.  Your edit appears to  
>> have been
>> implemented _within the past hour_, I will note.  As you know, I'd
>> mentioned the misstatement of fact twice on license-discuss twice,  
>> the
>> earlier time having been on Dec. 20, i.e., right in front of you,  
>> nine
>> days ago.
>>
>> > Deplorable is a strong word in the context of a community,  
>> especially
>> > a welcoming one.
>>
>> Asking the Board to formally deplore the particular patterns of  
>> activity
>> I cited seems amply merited by the problem those 20 firms have  
>> created.
>> In fact, it strikes me as extremely mild, in the circumstances.  
>> Other
>> actions, such as yours in sending and posting the GAP memo, should be
>> praised and are quite appreciated.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Rick Moen
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Ross Mayfield
> CEO
> Socialtext, Inc.
> ross.mayfield@...
> aim:rossdmayfield
> skype:rossmayfield
> t. [phone]
> f. [phone]
> company: http://www.socialtext.com
> weblog: http://ross.typepad.com
> many-to-many: http://www.corante.com/many
> this email is: [ ] bloggable [ x ] ask first [ ] private

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ross Mayfield (ross.mayfield@...):

> I'm not going to engage in fisking arguments by email.  I might have
> lost your prior comments in the 100 fold thread that didn't yield that
> much substance against the GAP.

You would not be counting outright jettisoning of OSD#10, I gather
(especially given your ignoring the suggestion of an "if any" qualifying
GAP's "display of the same size" phrase).

> I'll point to a link that should help clarify the steps Socialtext has
> taken in good faith, and what we did to clarify our license.
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3430

I'm intimately familar with Mr. Berlind's excellent article, thanks.
(I owe at least a tall frosty one to him, Andrew C. Oliver, and Nicholas
Goodman, whose writings on this subject are all mentioned in my
upcoming _Linux Gazette_ coverage.)

> I did amend the blog post tonight to provide a link to the license.

But _not_ to mention that your firm's licence -- which it professes to be
open source -- has never been OSI certified and that Socialtext has in
fact avoided submitting it (the outcome being predictable).  Thus,
you're happy to continue, in effect, misleading the public.

> We did not submit the SPL which is consistent with OSD [...]

...other than OSD#10, and substantively #3 (especially given the bit
about "the very bottom center of each user interface screen", which
makes derivative works using two such codebases under your licence
_impossible even in theory_).

> -- and instead sought to address the general problem we all face
> through the GAP.

To repeat, that was commendable.  However:

> And we would never use the OSI Certified mark unless under an OSI
> approved.  That's the point.

No, sir, that is very assuredly not the point.  Your firm lacks anything
like the clear degree of fault Sapienter displays, but regrettably seems
(along with SugarCRM) to have been a key part of the problem I cited --
and evidently wishes to continue being one.  Yours and the others are
thus the reason I requested a measured, reasonable response from the
OSI Board.

I might as well use space here to thank Compiere, which until recently
used an MPL 1.1 + "Exhibit B" clause licence, but within this past month
seems to have ended the practice and joined the open source world.

Best Regards,
Rick Moen

[Rick Moen]

I join Danese Cooper in thanking Ross Mayfield and Socialtext for
helping bring the Exhibit B-addenda issue to OSI's attention, and in
particular for the Generic Attribution Provision text, and Ross's
general spirit of dialogue.

If I've seemed a bit sharp, it's been partly because of some
forked-tongue statements and insultingly obvious distortions from
numerous other semi-related parties, which I've encountered both here
and elsewhere, which have correspondingly dominated the press's coverage
of this issue.

Let me give you one example (and many others could be cited):  CEO John
Roberts of SugarCRM, Inc., to my knowledge the original founder and main
exponent (well, alongside Matt Asay) of the MPL + Exhibit B
"Attribution" notion has for quite some time been going around telling
all and sundry[1] that _all_ he did was "merely combine elements from
two existing open source licenses -- the Mozilla Public License and the
Attribution Assurance License".

Roberts is also directly quoted (by David Berlind, in a podcast
interview) as saying, even more strikingly, "If you look through the
Sugar Public License ...it is the combination of two OSI approved
licenses.  The MPL and the [Attribution] Assurance License."

I believe Roberts has also made that same assertion here in on this
mailing list.

And thus OSI has _already_ been approving "attribution" licences[2] --
and SugarCRM has, we are told, has even been _more_ pure in its
approach than merely drafting a brand-new licence:  Instead, they just
grabbed two OSI-approved messages, and combined them.  Logically,
shouldn't that thus result in open source (is the implied question)?
What could be more reasonable?


Only one problem:  It's just not true!  The whole ball of wax, the whole
megillah, le chose entier, the _entire_ preceding line of reasoning,
rests on a breathtakingly nervy misrepresentation of fact -- for, you
see, the Attribution Assurance License is _nothing_ like SugarCRM's
Exhibit B addendum (nor at all like any of the other 18 firms' licences
I mentioned).  Compare:


Relevant section of Edwin A. Suominen's Attribution Assurance License:

  Redistributions of the Code in binary form must be accompanied by
  this GPG-signed text in any documentation and, each time the resulting
  executable program or a program dependent thereon is launched, a
  prominent display (e.g., splash screen or banner text) of the Author's
  attribution information, which includes:

  (a) Name ("AUTHOR"),
  (b) Professional identification ("PROFESSIONAL IDENTIFICATION"), and
  (c) URL ("URL").


Relevant section of SugarCRM Public Licence v. 1.1.3:

  [I]n addition to the other notice obligations, all copies of the Covered
  Code in Executable and Source Code form distributed must, as a form of
  attribution of the original author, include on each user interface
  screen (i) the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo and (ii) the copyright notice
  in the same form as the latest version of the Covered Code distributed
  by SugarCRM, Inc. at the time of distribution of such copy. In addition,
  the "Powered by SugarCRM" logo must be visible to all users and be
  located at the very bottom center of each user interface screen.
  Notwithstanding the above, the dimensions of the "Powered By SugarCRM"
  logo must be at least 106 x 23 pixels.



How are we to respond when someone comes to us and bases his entire
argument on a fundamental assertion of fact that turns out, upon cursory
examination, to be just plain false?


[1] Examples:  http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=211
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=867
http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/ZDNets+IT+Matters/8276

[2] The Adaptive Public Licence also gets quoted in these advocacy
song-and-dance routines, as does Open Source License -- e.g., in the
long and equally distortive advocacy segments of Ross Mayfield's page
http://www.socialtext.net/stoss/index.cgi?attribution_memo .  Guess what?
Those licences are nothing like these Web 2.0 "Exhibit B" addenda, either.

[Paul Casal-2]

The people of Sapienter have removed all the references of OSI from the jbilling license page. I do not believe they had this references in bad faith. This is an example of ignorance (or stupidity if you want).

Regards,

Paul Casal

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Paul Casal-2]

The people of Sapienter have removed all the references of OSI from the jbilling license page. I do not believe they had this references in bad faith. This is an example of ignorance (or stupidity if you want).

Regards,

Paul Casal

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Matthew Flaschen]

Paul Casal wrote:
> The people of Sapienter have removed all the references of OSI from the jbilling license page. I do not believe they had this references in bad faith. This is an example of ignorance (or stupidity if you want).

There's no way to be sure.  However, this is basically a happy ending.
They didn't come off any worse, and hopefully they and others
considering the same learned a lesson.

Thanks for the heads up.

Matthew Flaschen