Florian Weimer wrote: > 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.)
Given how major Cloud companies lobbied OSI to declare the AGPLv3 as OSD-non-compliant, I'm sure you'll find support for your position seeking the OSI to reverse its decision and declare AGPLv3 non-OSD-compliant. > Maybe OSI should amend the GPL and AGPL certification to say that it's only > valued if no Additional Terms are used? So, you'd propose the A/GPLv3 be accepted as OSD-compliant only when it's not compatible with the ASLv2? More importantly, such a position would also make GCC's license non-OSD-compliant too. Does it really make sense for OSI to declare GCC's license as non-OSD-compliant? I'm sure $AAPL would love that, of course … Conflating additional permissions with further restrictions is precisely what these nefarious companies want to happen in the community. Zack had replied: >> I agree that the uncertainty here is enough, in practice, to keep users >> from actually exercising their rights of stripping further restrictions, >> as per *GPL-3 licenses. Indeed. IMO, the best solution here would be for the OSI to join other FOSS activists to take a stand in encouraging removal of further restrictions under the Affero GPL. The Neo4j situation was a huge missed opportunity in this regard. -- bkuhn _______________________________________________ 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
