<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/9/24 02:18, Josh Berkus wrote:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1005c9d5-dbed-4db4-85f8-c54758760467@berkus.org">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">The Pretix conference software project is using a modified version of
the AGPL for its license:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/pretix/pretix/blob/master/LICENSE">https://github.com/pretix/pretix/blob/master/LICENSE</a>
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.</pre>
</blockquote>
<span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">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.</span></p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">So, I'd suggest keeping separate:</span></p>
<ul>
<li>is <b>this license</b> open source? from</li>
<li>is <b>the </b><span style="white-space: pre-wrap"><b>fall-through license</b> open source?</span></li>
</ul>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">1. You are permitted to use pretix or
combined or modified versions of pretix without respecting GNU
AGPL section 13<br>
(Remote Network Interaction) as long as you follow all of the
additional terms in this document and do NOT use<br>
pretix for any of the following purposes:</blockquote>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">2. Pursuant to AGPLv3, Section 7 (b), you
are not allowed to remove the attribution notice indicating the
generated<br>
website is built using pretix at the bottom of all generated
web pages. If you run a modified version of pretix,<br>
you are allowed to rephrase it to indicate a combined work in
a form similar to "powered by <Company> based on<br>
pretix, source code available at <location>". The word
pretix must be a link to <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://pretix.eu/">https://pretix.eu/</a>.<br>
</blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">3. Pursuant to AGPLv3, Section 7 (c), if
you distribute a modified version in source or binary form, or
if you offer<br>
usage of a modified version to third parties (SaaS), it is
important to be clear about what kind of modifications<br>
the distributed work contains. You may not give the
impression that the work being distributed or the service<br>
provided is an authorized or original distribution by pretix.<br>
</blockquote>
Very untidy drafting, but seems reasonable.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>- Roland</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>