Marc Laporte wrote: > I occasionally notice projects which add clauses such as this one > http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2011-November/000025.html > > Here are three more: > > a) AskoziaPBX is BSD with an extra clause > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AskoziaPBX > http://www.askozia.com/pbx-license/ > > > b) Roundcube intends to move to GPLv3+ with an exception: > http://lists.roundcube.net/mail-archive/announce/2011-12/0000002.html > > > c) sipXecs is AGPL and there are some additional clauses, including > "By using the sipXecs solution you agree that SIPfoundry can use your > name and logo to identify you as a user of the sipXecs solution" > http://www.sipfoundry.org/licensing > > > > 1- Do these examples above respect the Free Software and/or Open > Source definitions?
For TCPDF - it might depend on the details, which I haven't researched, but most likely not. Even if FOSS, this is, to me, an illegitimate use of LGPLv3 with a noncustomary additional restriction, even if it is not a violation of any upstream LGPL license. This reminds me of iText, another PDF-generating library, recent versions of which purport to be under AGPLv3 plus a similar restriction. AskoziaPBX is clearly not FOSS, as it requires "prior written consent" for commercial redistribution. The intended license of Roundcube skins/plugins seems OK (GPL plus additional permissions [or copyleft clarifications if you prefer]) but could probably be drafted more clearly. I couldn't access the sipfoundry.org site, but I'd consider the quoted provision enough to make a license non-FOSS. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
