On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 10:38 AM VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't see how this position can possibly be logically consistent with
> the broad understanding of open source: A foundational license of both free
> software and open source, that is not FOSS if it is used as explicitly
> described within the license?
>
A license is used with additional text not accepted by OSI, and thus the
combination is not accepted as Open Source. This is a very common situation
and applies to every license that does not have an explicit ban on
additional terms. Consider the "commons clause" in that regard. I don't
think we had any problem determining it wasn't Open Source.
Thanks
Bruce
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
