[License-discuss] Special clauses added to OSI-approved licenses: are they OK, and if not, what can/should we do about it?
rfontana at redhat.com
Thu Dec 29 04:33:37 UTC 2011
Marc Laporte wrote:
> I occasionally notice projects which add clauses such as this one
> Here are three more:
> a) AskoziaPBX is BSD with an extra clause
> b) Roundcube intends to move to GPLv3+ with an exception:
> c) sipXecs is AGPL and there are some additional clauses, including
> "By using the sipXecs solution you agree that SIPfoundry can use your
> name and logo to identify you as a user of the sipXecs solution"
> 1- Do these examples above respect the Free Software and/or Open
> Source definitions?
For TCPDF - it might depend on the details, which I haven't
researched, but most likely not. Even if FOSS, this is, to me, an
illegitimate use of LGPLv3 with a noncustomary additional restriction,
even if it is not a violation of any upstream LGPL license. This
reminds me of iText, another PDF-generating library, recent versions
of which purport to be under AGPLv3 plus a similar restriction.
AskoziaPBX is clearly not FOSS, as it requires "prior written consent"
for commercial redistribution.
The intended license of Roundcube skins/plugins seems OK (GPL plus
additional permissions [or copyleft clarifications if you prefer]) but
could probably be drafted more clearly.
I couldn't access the sipfoundry.org site, but I'd consider the quoted
provision enough to make a license non-FOSS.
More information about the License-discuss