Re: Thoughts on the Pretix License?

Josh Berkus:

> The Pretix conference software project is using a modified version of
the AGPL for its license:
>
> https://github.com/pretix/pretix/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Curious whether folks think this is OSS or not?  I can't see anything in
there that is specifically not, but the business-specific exemptions
from certain AGPL requirements just feels weird.   On the other hand,
anyone who doesn't qualify for those exemptions just has to follow the
AGPL, which is open source.

Worth noting: these exemptions are mostly taken from SSPL section 13.
So as far as this part of the pretix exception goes, it's sort of like
saying "if you don't fall under the criteria that would trigger SSPL
section 13 if SSPL were the license, even if you'd otherwise fall
under the criteria that would trigger AGPLv3 section 13, the pretix
license is basically GPLv3 ".

I think this is both interesting and somewhat troubling, but probably
open source.

However:

> On 9/23/24 11:28, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > I'm not excited about the attribution notice requirement indicating that a specific word in the notice must be a hyperlink to a specific URL, but given the nature of the software compliance should be easy, and if that URL becomes dead at some point no harm is done.
>
> Oh, wait, that's a straight-up badgeware clause, and one that I would
> argue is OSD-violating, since it prevents using the code for anything
> that doesn't involve full web pages.
>
> It's also a pretty gross perversion of AGPL clause 7b, that's not what
> 7b is for.

 "Pursuant to AGPLv3, Section 7 (b), you are not allowed to remove the
attribution notice indicating the generated
   website is built using pretix at the bottom of all generated web
pages. If you run a modified version of pretix,
   you are allowed to rephrase it to indicate a combined work in a
form similar to "powered by <Company> based on
   pretix, source code available at <location>". The word pretix must
be a link to https://pretix.eu/."

I agree that this is not an appropriate use of (A)GPLv3 7b; this is a
"further restriction" from an AGPL perspective. Whether it is the sort
of badgeware provision that ought to preclude the license from being
considered open source, I'm not sure. It might depend on how flexible
we're supposed to understand "in a form similar to". It isn't as bad
as earlier badgeware provisions that mandated preservation of "Powered
by <original company>". I find the mere suggestion that you have to
use the ridiculous phrase "powered by" at all problematic in itself.

Richard


_______________________________________________
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
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org