[License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache
blueofer at gmail.com
Fri Aug 9 14:30:18 UTC 2019
Related question -
Can I release the software under a dual license: AGPL and my modified
Assuming my modified Apache is not open source by OSI, would the code still
be open source by OSI because it's also licensed under AGPL?
If so, then we end up with either:
* Disclose any modifications (AGPL)
* Register (private and public) usage
Last question - what's considered the most restrictive open source license?
Is it AGPL?
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, 16:51 Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM Johnny A. Solbu <johnny at solbu.net> wrote:
>> Then you are effectively demanding registration.
>> That is still not allowed in Free and Open Source software, meaning, that
>> makes it Not Free and Open Source.
>> I belive the Free Software Foundation would even call it proprietary.
>> I imagine most of the partitipants on this list would refuse to use
>> software that require them to register in order to use it.
> The FSF rejected the RPL
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#RPL : "2. It requires
> notification of the original developer for publication of a modified
> version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an
> organization uses, even privately."
> In Ofer's license proposal this is registration of mere usage, not
> registration of publication (public disclosure) of modified versions, so is
> even less likely to be accepted by the FSF.
> I'm wondering if anyone can help explain to me what they see as the
> difference between the forced public disclosure of private modifications of
> software, and registration of mere usage, private modification, or public
> discloseof software? All of these involve the forced disclose of private
> While I believe that there would be consensus on registration making
> software non-FLOSS, there appears to be a growing divide on forced public
> disclosure (and not strictly between the FSF and OSI, given the FSF has
> granted approval to licenses which cross the line of forced public
> disclosure of private activities).
> I agree that the outcome may seem different for those focused on source
> code disclosure, but the argument seems similar. In policy discussions
> (and licenses are part of a policy discussion, whether people recognise it
> or not) a bad argument can set precedent that can be used for different
> (possibly opposing) outcomes. We need to be careful about unintended
> consequences and not narrowly on the disclosed intent.
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss