I agree that all looks very worrying and probably disqualifying, but the trademark terms in clause 2 are even worse as they prohibit you from rebranding the software as would be essential to fork:
Using these trademarks without the (TM) trademark notice symbol, removing > these trademarks from the software, modifying these trademarks in any > manner except proportional scaling (under the proviso that such scaling > keeps the trademark clearly legible), or using these trademarks to promote > any products or services commercially, or on product packaging, websites, > books, documentation or any other publication without a written, signed > agreement with Linagora is strictly prohibited, and constitutes an > infringement of Linagora intellectual property rights over these trademarks. > I can't see any this new license resulting from the AGPL and the additional terms would be approved by license-review@ Cheers Simon (in a personal capacity) On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:10 PM Josh Berkus <j...@berkus.org> wrote: > Folks, > > Someone just forwarded me this: > > https://github.com/linagora/linshare/blob/master/COPYING.md > > Take a look at "additional terms", esp: > > > In accordance with Section 7 and subsection (b) of the GNU Affero > General Public License version 3, these Appropriate Legal Notices consist > in the interface display of the "LinShare™" trademark/logo, the interface > display of the "Libre & Free" mention, and the interface display of the > "You are using the Free and Open Source version of LinShare™, powered by > Linagora © 2009--2020. Contribute to Linshare R&D by subscribing to an > Enterprise offer!". The latter notice must also be displayed in any > asynchronous message sent with the Program, for example e-mails which will > contain this notice in their footer. Retaining these Appropriate Legal > Notices in any and all Free and Open Source versions of LinShare and > LinShare software Programs is mandatory notwhistanding any other terms and > conditions. > > ... this is the most burdensome example of an attribution notice I've > ever seen. Feels like it's a violation of 10, and possibly 6 or 8 as > well. Thoughts? > > -- > Josh Berkus > > _______________________________________________ > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not > necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the > Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. > > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
