[License-discuss] Greetings, Earthlings! Need quotes for article

Karl Fogel kfogel at red-bean.com
Wed Dec 21 21:34:19 UTC 2011

John, thanks -- having this analysis helps a lot.  That language in the
Frameworx license is very odd; I wonder what the backstory is.  I
can't see now what the motivation might have been.


John Cowan <cowan at mercury.ccil.org> writes:
>Karl Fogel scripsit:
>>   Adaptive Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0
>This license was pretty much beyond my comprehension when it was first
>brought up, and it still is.
>>   Frameworx License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0
>The issue here seems to be clauses 1d and 3b:
>    1. (d) Value-Added Services means any commercial or fee-based
>    software-related service, including without limitation: system or
>    application development or consulting; technical or end-user support
>    or training; distribution maintenance, configuration or versioning;
>    or outsourced, hosted or network-based application services.
>    3. (b) Any Value-Added Services that you offer or provide,
>    directly or indirectly, in relation to any Downstream Distribution
>    shall be offered and provided on commercial terms that are
>    reasonably commensurate to the fair market value of such Value-Added
>    Services. In addition, the terms and conditions on which any such
>    Value Added Services are so offered or provided shall be consistent
>    with, and shall fully support, the intent and purpose of this
>    License Agreement.
>These are funky terms, but they only require that such services
>be provided on commercial terms (the "reasonably commensurate"
>stuff is supererogatory, since nobody would accept commercial terms
>incommensurate with fair market value), and in no way restrict the
>offering on other terms provided they support the intent and purpose of
>this License Agreement, which has to do with making the original code
>freely available.
>>   OCLC Public Research License            2.0
>>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/OCLC-2.0
>I don't see any problems with this license.
>>   Reciprocal Public License
>This license is like the APL, but more so.
>>   Ricoh Source Code Public License
>>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL
>This is a mildly edited version of MPL-1.0, plus a variant of the
>"obnoxious BSD advertising clause":
>    5.1. Advertising Materials.
>    All advertising materials mentioning features or use of the Governed
>    Code must display the following acknowledgement: "This product
>    includes software developed by Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc."
>Now the 4-clause BSD has never gotten OSI approval, though it is listed
>as FSF-free.  But I don't see how it contravenes any of the OSD clauses.
>>   Sybase Open Watcom Public License         1.0
>>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0
>I don't see anything wrong with this MPL variant either.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list