[License-discuss] Open Source Software Question.

Brendan Hickey brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com
Sat Oct 5 15:42:26 UTC 2019


They're mixing an open source project and a proprietary project in one
repository. Per their readme, the proprietary components are in an
enterprise subdirectory. It would be more polite of them to use two
repositories, but it's their project there's nothing wrong with this *per
se*.

"NoLicenseMaximumAllowedUserCount" is only checked in the proprietary
source tree.

On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 4:29 AM Ahmed Hassan <ahassan at rapidsos.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20191005/8f977259/attachment.html>


More information about the License-discuss mailing list