On 9/20/2022 3:15 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
So you are saying that it would be appropriate for the OSI to approve the license, they would just have their fingers crossed behind their back that it was with the knowledge that a provision is unenforceable? That's just silly, the OSI does not approve licenses that are facially non-compliant.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.
I think you're right that no one has a claim against the party adding the restriction, for example, in the situation where a party is using AGPL software and their terms of use prohibit redistribution, because the AGPL is not worded that way. It doesn't prohibit adding restrictions (so it's not a breach of contract to add them), the only relief is to remove them. Which you will do with /Neo4j/, which rejected exactly your theory about removing the restriction, lurking in the background.
And the OSI view on /Neo4j /is quite different from how you characterized it. There were two aspects of the decision, a false advertising one and a license interpretation one. OSI applauded the court's conclusion that the AGPL combined with the Commons Clause could not be called an open source license, which is a victory for open source. But the OSI also took a strong position against the court's interpretation of how the addition of the Commons Clause should have been treated in a blog post titled "User beware: Modified AGPLv3 removes freedoms, adds legal headaches <https://blog.opensource.org/modified-agplv3-removes-freedoms-adds-legal-headaches/>," a blog post that quoted and linked to the Conservancy position. Please be more accurate in your reporting.
Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com
_______________________________________________ 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
