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

On 10/4/2024 3:15 PM, Lucy Brown via License-discuss wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:32 McCoy Smith 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     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.*
>
> I originally had that whole paragraph in my license, I was told that 
> *You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. *violates OSD6.

To clarify if there is any misunderstanding, your original license was 
"/You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this 
Software on physical media. You may charge any fee you choose for 
support of this Software. You may not charge a fee for this Software 
itself./" I called out "You may not charge a fee for this Software 
itself," which appears to be a statement about whether one could charge 
a fee for exercising the licensed rights, i.e., the rights granted in 1, 
2 and 3. So it wasn't an objection to a fee for providing a copy of the 
source code, which is what the above paragraph is about, and which you 
also included in the first quoted sentence, but what appeared to be a 
prohibition on charging a fee for exercising the licensed rights.

Pam

Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative

_______________________________________________
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