Re: Thoughts on the Pretix License?

On 24/9/24 02:18, Josh Berkus wrote:

> 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.

A non-open-source license which offers a fall-through to open source is 
still itself non-open-source. The code is still of use to open source 
communities of course. An increasingly common case of this is 
automatically-open-source-fixed-time-after-release, which provides an 
important risk-management capability for corporate users.

So, I'd suggest keeping separate:

  * is *this license* open source? from
  * is *the **fall-through license* open source?

> 1. You are permitted to use pretix or combined or modified versions of 
> pretix without respecting GNU AGPL section 13
>    (Remote Network Interaction) as long as you follow all of the 
> additional terms in this document and do NOT use
>    pretix for any of the following purposes:

Purpose-differential terms would appear to be a breach of OSD#6, unless 
"restrict" is interpreted to mean "total prohibition only". This 
exception is explicitly field-of-endaevour discriminatory.


> 2. 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/.
It's badgeware, but doesn't appear to breach OSD. If you create a 
derivative work which doesn't generate web pages then you'll trivially 
comply (all 0 pages have the advert on them). This seems dumb, but makes 
sense given Pretix's objectives.

> 3. Pursuant to AGPLv3, Section 7 (c), if you distribute a modified 
> version in source or binary form, or if you offer
>    usage of a modified version to third parties (SaaS), it is 
> important to be clear about what kind of modifications
>    the distributed work contains. You may not give the impression that 
> the work being distributed or the service
>    provided is an authorized or original distribution by pretix.
Very untidy drafting, but seems reasonable.


- Roland

_______________________________________________
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