[License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

[McCoy Smith]

OK I’ll bite: which case are you referring to?
I’m not seeing anything from Linaro on PACER.

 

From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of Simon Phipps
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 1:24 PM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

 

 

 

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 9:21 PM Stefano Zacchiroli <zack at opensource.org <mailto:zack at opensource.org> > wrote:

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:41:06AM -0700, McCoy Smith wrote:
> Seems like it might violate the definition of appropriate legal notice in GPLv3.

... hence, one should be able to just remove these de facto "further
restrictions", as per:

  > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further
  > restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as
  > you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that
  > it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further
  > restriction, you may remove that term.

Right?

 

A recent court case in the US suggests that if Linaro owns all the copyrights it would be unwise to rely on that without further precedent or reliable defence.

 

Simon

(in a personal capacity)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20220919/04da80e8/attachment.html>