Karl Fogel scripsit: > Adaptive Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0
This license was pretty much beyond my comprehension when it was first brought up, and it still is. > Frameworx License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0 The issue here seems to be clauses 1d and 3b: 1. (d) Value-Added Services means any commercial or fee-based software-related service, including without limitation: system or application development or consulting; technical or end-user support or training; distribution maintenance, configuration or versioning; or outsourced, hosted or network-based application services. 3. (b) Any Value-Added Services that you offer or provide, directly or indirectly, in relation to any Downstream Distribution shall be offered and provided on commercial terms that are reasonably commensurate to the fair market value of such Value-Added Services. In addition, the terms and conditions on which any such Value Added Services are so offered or provided shall be consistent with, and shall fully support, the intent and purpose of this License Agreement. These are funky terms, but they only require that such services be provided on commercial terms (the "reasonably commensurate" stuff is supererogatory, since nobody would accept commercial terms incommensurate with fair market value), and in no way restrict the offering on other terms provided they support the intent and purpose of this License Agreement, which has to do with making the original code freely available. > OCLC Public Research License 2.0 > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/OCLC-2.0 I don't see any problems with this license. > Reciprocal Public License This license is like the APL, but more so. > Ricoh Source Code Public License > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL This is a mildly edited version of MPL-1.0, plus a variant of the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause": 5.1. Advertising Materials. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of the Governed Code must display the following acknowledgement: "This product includes software developed by Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc." Now the 4-clause BSD has never gotten OSI approval, though it is listed as FSF-free. But I don't see how it contravenes any of the OSD clauses. > Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 I don't see anything wrong with this MPL variant either. All IMHO. IANAL, TINLA. -- And through this revolting graveyard of the universe the muffled, maddening beating of drums, and thin, monotonous whine of blasphemous flutes from inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond Time; the detestable pounding and piping whereunto dance slowly, awkwardly, and absurdly the gigantic tenebrous ultimate gods --the blind, voiceless, mindless gargoyles whose soul is Nyarlathotep. (Lovecraft) John Cowan [email protected] _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
