Bruce Perens via License-discuss dixit:
>My interpretation is that OSD #3, in the words after the comma, does permit
>immutable terms. Attribution is usually a statement of copyright ownership
>and qualifies as a term. Rants do not.
>> > What about "If the Work includes
>> > a 'NOTICE' text file
McCoy Smith wrote at 11:41 (PDT) on Monday:
>> Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in
>> GPLv3.
(It's AGPLv3 in this situations that we're discussing, but the sections in
question McCoy is referring to are the same in both AGPLv3 and GPLv3.)
Linagora's LinShare
My interpretation is that OSD #3, in the words after the comma, does permit
immutable terms. Attribution is usually a statement of copyright ownership
and qualifies as a term. Rants do not.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:44 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pamela Chestek dixit:
>
> > What about "this per
> The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original
software.
This actually restricts the scope of modifications. The license is
permitted to restrict modifications to only those that allow the work to
We've had long discussions about badgeware in the past. Just search for
that word in the list archives. Not an OSD-compliant license.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:41 AM McCoy Smith wrote:
> Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in
> GPLv3.
>
> > -Original Messa
