[License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS

[Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah]

I would also like to have AAL 2.0 license.


On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:40 PM Hillel Coren <hillelcoren at gmail.com> wrote:

> An AAL 2.0 license sounds great, thank you for the clarification!
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:25 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/29/20 7:01 AM, Hillel Coren wrote:
>> > It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
>> > developers will either choose a different OSI approved license or change
>> > their software from being labeled 'OSS' to 'Source-available software'.
>> > I'd argue in practice many developers (ourselves included) would instead
>> > choose to share less code.
>>
>> Please read the whole of the AAL discussion so that you can understand
>> the difference between "attribution" and "badgeware".
>>
>> One option for the AAL would be to create the AAL 2.0, which would fix
>> the badgeware clause, replacing it with a proper attribution clause.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Berkus
>>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> 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/20200329/dd6bbae8/attachment.html>