[License-discuss] Open Source Software Question.

[Ahmed Hassan]

Part of the software is released under Apache 2 license, the other part of
the project has a directory with DRM that limit the number of users that
the open source version can access. They use the word "open source" in the
read me file.

https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph#license
Here is the constant that will render the open source version unusable. It
doesn't have any option to disable it.
https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph/blob/e7b982df18238ea45d7b868f64a8f78a508a4df7/enterprise/cmd/frontend/internal/licensing/licenseusercount.go#L160

Is that a valid use of the term open source?
--
Ahmed

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:32 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:

> As James indicates -- the expression "released under dual licences"
> implies one project with a choice between two licenses. This seems to be
> two things (in a project). Thing1 is open source and Think2 is not. As
> Kevin said, Think2 is not open source. Presumably nothing stops you from
> using Think1 under the open source license and, in a clean room, writing
> your own Think2 implementation (and publishing it as open source so that we
> can all benefit from it).
>
> Back in 2015/16 we ran into some projects that has something like what I
> thought you were asking: where the code itself was published under and open
> source license, but a sample project in a sub directory was published with
> a restrictive license that granted the rights to "(*1) use and copy the
> Software; and (2) reproduce and distribute the Software as part of your own
> software ("Your Software"), provided Your Software does not consist solely
> of the Software; and (3) modify the Software for your own internal use.*"
> In other words -- the code project was open source, but parts of the repo
> were not. So we had to strip those out in our mirror. That license scheme
> is no longer being used (I'm pretty sure, thankfully). It was annoying
> since it meant we had to look carefully at a repo and see that the license
> headers were not consistent.
>
> 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
>
> My work calendar is open for colleagues to see. yo/open-calendars
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:26 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+osi at km6g.us> wrote:
>
>> No, usage restrictions are incompatible with the Open Source
>> Definition. If the software has such restrictions it cannot be called
>> 'open source'.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 6:49 AM Ahmed Hassan <ahassan at rapidsos.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi All:
>> >
>> > I found a software on github that is released under dual licences.
>> Parts of the software is under Apache licence, the other is under
>> proprietary licence. The part of the software that's responsible for user
>> access is under proprietary licence.
>> >
>> > Can someone claim a software to be an open source by restricting number
>> of users who can access it for self installation?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ahmed
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191004/a3a45b29/attachment.html>