[License-discuss] Thoughts on the Pretix License?

[Roland Turner]

On 24/9/24 02:18, Josh Berkus wrote:

> The Pretix conference software project is using a modified version of
> the AGPL for its license:
>
> https://github.com/pretix/pretix/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> Curious whether folks think this is OSS or not?  I can't see anything in
> there that is specifically not, but the business-specific exemptions
> from certain AGPL requirements just feels weird.   On the other hand,
> anyone who doesn't qualify for those exemptions just has to follow the
> AGPL, which is open source.

A non-open-source license which offers a fall-through to open source is 
still itself non-open-source. The code is still of use to open source 
communities of course. An increasingly common case of this is 
automatically-open-source-fixed-time-after-release, which provides an 
important risk-management capability for corporate users.

So, I'd suggest keeping separate:

  * is *this license* open source? from
  * is *the **fall-through license* open source?

> 1. You are permitted to use pretix or combined or modified versions of 
> pretix without respecting GNU AGPL section 13
>    (Remote Network Interaction) as long as you follow all of the 
> additional terms in this document and do NOT use
>    pretix for any of the following purposes:

Purpose-differential terms would appear to be a breach of OSD#6, unless 
"restrict" is interpreted to mean "total prohibition only". This 
exception is explicitly field-of-endaevour discriminatory.


> 2. Pursuant to AGPLv3, Section 7 (b), you are not allowed to remove 
> the attribution notice indicating the generated
>    website is built using pretix at the bottom of all generated web 
> pages. If you run a modified version of pretix,
>    you are allowed to rephrase it to indicate a combined work in a 
> form similar to "powered by <Company> based on
>    pretix, source code available at <location>". The word pretix must 
> be a link to https://pretix.eu/.
It's badgeware, but doesn't appear to breach OSD. If you create a 
derivative work which doesn't generate web pages then you'll trivially 
comply (all 0 pages have the advert on them). This seems dumb, but makes 
sense given Pretix's objectives.

> 3. Pursuant to AGPLv3, Section 7 (c), if you distribute a modified 
> version in source or binary form, or if you offer
>    usage of a modified version to third parties (SaaS), it is 
> important to be clear about what kind of modifications
>    the distributed work contains. You may not give the impression that 
> the work being distributed or the service
>    provided is an authorized or original distribution by pretix.
Very untidy drafting, but seems reasonable.


- Roland

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241003/ec01c5c6/attachment-0001.htm>