Part of the software is released under Apache 2 license, the other part of the project has a directory with DRM that limit the number of users that the open source version can access. They use the word "open source" in the read me file.
https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph#license Here is the constant that will render the open source version unusable. It doesn't have any option to disable it. https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/blob/e7b982df18238ea45d7b868f64a8f78a508a4df7/enterprise/cmd/frontend/internal/licensing/licenseusercount.go#L160 Is that a valid use of the term open source? -- Ahmed On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:32 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > As James indicates -- the expression "released under dual licences" > implies one project with a choice between two licenses. This seems to be > two things (in a project). Thing1 is open source and Think2 is not. As > Kevin said, Think2 is not open source. Presumably nothing stops you from > using Think1 under the open source license and, in a clean room, writing > your own Think2 implementation (and publishing it as open source so that we > can all benefit from it). > > Back in 2015/16 we ran into some projects that has something like what I > thought you were asking: where the code itself was published under and open > source license, but a sample project in a sub directory was published with > a restrictive license that granted the rights to "(*1) use and copy the > Software; and (2) reproduce and distribute the Software as part of your own > software ("Your Software"), provided Your Software does not consist solely > of the Software; and (3) modify the Software for your own internal use.*" > In other words -- the code project was open source, but parts of the repo > were not. So we had to strip those out in our mirror. That license scheme > is no longer being used (I'm pretty sure, thankfully). It was annoying > since it meant we had to look carefully at a repo and see that the license > headers were not consistent. > > Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement > > From the Open Source Program Office > <https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - -> > Verizon Media > > My work calendar is open for colleagues to see. yo/open-calendars > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:26 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+...@km6g.us> wrote: > >> No, usage restrictions are incompatible with the Open Source >> Definition. If the software has such restrictions it cannot be called >> 'open source'. >> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:49 AM Ahmed Hassan <ahas...@rapidsos.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi All: >> > >> > I found a software on github that is released under dual licences. >> Parts of the software is under Apache licence, the other is under >> proprietary licence. The part of the software that's responsible for user >> access is under proprietary licence. >> > >> > Can someone claim a software to be an open source by restricting number >> of users who can access it for self installation? >> > >> > -- >> > Ahmed >> > _______________________________________________ >> > License-discuss mailing list >> > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> > >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
