[License-discuss] Discussion: AGPL and Open Source Definition conflict

Roger Fujii rmf at lookhere.com
Wed Aug 14 21:51:15 UTC 2019

On 8/14/2019 1:41 PM, Howard Chu wrote:
> Richard Fontana wrote:
>> The precise question here seems to be whether the server operator can
>> be said to be "prominently offer[ing]" the opportunity to receive the
>> source code in this sort of case (the hypothetical where existing LDAP
>> clients cannot recognize the extension). To the extent that's an OSD
>> 10 issue, I guess it would be because in the context of particular
>> technology standards, it may be impossible to "prominently offer" in
>> any meaningful sense. But that goes back to the issue of whether
>> "technology" in OSD 10 includes any specifically defined technology
>> standard.
> Expanding on this - I know of no technology standard that allows a low level
> client library to prominently display anything to an end user, particularly
> if that library is buried under multiple layers of other libraries. E.g.,
> while LDAP software is commonly used for end-user authentication, it is seldom
> used directly - it is most often used under PAM/NSS or SASL or any of a variety
> of other intermediate security/authentication APIs. None of which provide any
> particular mechanism to route low-level informational messages to the end user.


One can look in /etc/services and get a quick non-exhaustive list.    
Even with some web services (websocket for one),
it's not clear how one would do such a thing in a safe way.   But more 
to the point, how is this issue any
different than the BSD w/advertising clause (which is not accepted by 
the OSI)?   Getting serious deja-vu here.

Roger Fujii

More information about the License-discuss mailing list