[License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

[Gil Yehuda]

I believe this group is about discussing licenses, and not giving legal
advice about what you can or should do. In that context: "Can I release the
software under a dual license: AGPL and my modified Apache?" yes, you can
do whatever you please with your code. However the world will recognize
that your terms are not open source (and likely not going to accomplish
your objectives, but honestly I'm not sure what your objectives are
anymore). Depending on what you mean "dual," that is. If you mean either
or, the AGPL is an open source license. If you mean to merge the two...
well, the details matter.

Why not just offer a commercial license and not bother with open source
licenses? Tell people they have to pay you to use your code. They can pay
you in money, charity, good deeds, and/or allowing you to use their logo on
your site. It's not open, but it's a license. I'm not sure what you get
trying to call it open when it's not.

Imagine giving a vegetarian some meat and saying "but I chopped it up so
you can't really tell; I shaped it to look like a tomato; cows eat grass so
technically this is plant-based too." at the end of the day, it's not
vegetarian. Just call it what it is. Meat eaters will enjoy it and
vegetarians will thank you for honest labeling.

Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement

>From the Open Source Program Office
<https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - ->
Verizon Media


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 10:31 AM Ofer <blueofer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Related question -
> Can I release the software under a dual license: AGPL and my modified
> Apache?
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019, 16:51 Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It
>> 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
>> activities.
>>
>> 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
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190809/9d8f810a/attachment.html>