Re: Thoughts on the Pretix License?

On 9/23/24 12:15, Richard Fontana wrote:
> 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.

It wouldn't be hard to modify that provision to make it OSD-compliant. 
But I don't believe that it is in its current form.

Academic, because Pretix isn't submitting their license variant.  This 
does point out the problem around "you may modify this license with 
additional clauses" though.

-- 
Josh Berkus

_______________________________________________
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