[License-discuss] Thoughts on the Pretix License?
Roland Turner
roland at rolandturner.com
Thu Oct 3 07:33:27 UTC 2024
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>
More information about the License-discuss
mailing list