Re: Question: is the following paragraph in violation of OSD6

On 10/4/2024 10:10 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 10/3/24 13:12, Lucy Brown via License-discuss wrote:
>> You may distribute this Software, with or without fee, provided that 
>> you do not advertise the Standard Version of this Software as a 
>> product of your own.
>
> We'd need to hash that out.  It certainly feels hinky, but I'm not 
> sure whether it would be an OSD violation or not.  Generally, 
> *requirements* to advertise anything aside from the licensing terms 
> are violations of OSD 8 and 10.  Requirements to not advertise 
> something?  Not sure.
>
> That assumes that by "Standard Version" the license means "Unmodified 
> source code"; if it means something else, it would depend on what. 
> Regardless, it's not possible to make any real judgement without 
> seeing the whole license.
>
> The more common thing in licenses is a requirement to NOT include the 
> source organization's name on modified versions.
>
FWIW, Artistic-1.0 (which is OSI approved) sort of has this concept (as 
may other OSI approved licenses)

5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this 
Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. 
You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. *However, you may 
distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) 
programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution 
provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own.*

_______________________________________________
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