* Bradley M. Kuhn: > So, while Bruce and Pam are correct that the additional restriction(s) *if > valid* would lead to OSD-non-compliance, the AGPLv3 itself allows for > removal of the term and downstream return to standard license *without* the > problematic “further restrictions”. Those downstream who do such removal > have *not* violated the AGPLv3 because of the explicit permission given by > AGPLv3§7¶4. So, to stay “Linagora's LinShare license doesn't comply with > OSD” is misleading. It *does* comply with OSD (and AGPLv3) because Lingora > actually gives permission to remove all the problematic restrictions that > concern all of us and would (theoretically, but for AGPLv3§7¶4) cause > OSD-non-compliance. IOW, *because* AGPLv3 is OSD-compliant *means* that any > software whose base license is AGPLv3 is de-facto OSD-compliant.
I don't like this reading purely for policy reasons. Clearly this company tries to push the idea to the limit that the AGPL is the GPL variant designed for an open-core business model. (I know this is historically inaccurate, but it's the way the AGPL is used by businesses, at least until they find out that it doesn't really help against competitors than do not have a problem with keeping the code open because the value *they* provide is not in proprietary modifications.) For this kind of open-core AGPL use case, it does not really matter that you can make the changes that are required to use the software without looking unprofessional because the AGPL says elsewhere that you can do that. It's just sufficient to create uncertainty around whether it's allowed, and provide a paid way out. People who want to use the software will likely pay when prompted. But when checking for OSD compliance, we shouldn't play this game. If new licenses are unclear and appear self-contradictory, then they shouldn't be deemed compliant, particularly if there is still just one copyright holder using the license, so that it can be easily changed. (Same for licenses which are overly long and complicated.) Maybe OSI should amend the GPL and AGPL certification to say that it's only valued if no Additional Terms are used? _______________________________________________ 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
