On Fri, Apr 5, 2024, at 23:07, Chris B wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I am an open source project maintainer and I was referred to this mailing
> list recently as a good place to ask questions.
>
> I was recently told by a community member that I should not be using the term
> "Open Source" as it has legal implications and the project doesn't fully
> embrace that term. Here is the argument:
>
> 1- The program has an optional paid component (not open source). The core
> program (that is open source) is fully functional as a stand-alone
> application. But the user has the option to pay for extra features that are
> not open source
>
> 2- The program has an optional telemetry that users can opt in / opt out
> before even installing the program.
>
> 3- Because of 1 & 2, there is a License Terms doc that outlines what is open
> source and what is not, and how the telemetry data is being used and what is
> being sent out.
Welcome! Given that I am not a lawyer and don't represent the OSI (just a
community member) I think that what you've done is fine, as long as portions
which are covered by an open source license and those which are not are clearly
separable (not just documented in a file). If there are source files which mix
the two types of code, then that is problematic for users and distributors as
they would need to modify the files to remove the non-open source bits if they
wanted the result to be fully open source.
The optional telemetry feature does not make the software not 'open source', in
my opinion, if the user has the freedom to opt in or out without modifying the
software.
_______________________________________________
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
