[License-review] Fwd: For Approval | Open Source Social Network License 1.0

[Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah]

@Josh, i am not an expert in these things but

The license provide example for prominent display it didn't means you must
show on splash screen, that means on any visible place.
Regarding your other 3 points,  the initial license is introduced for our
web application only.

- If you are running web based application on headless machine that means
either it is API or something else.
- If it is embedded hardware then it should be provided somewhere on
hardware just like arduino microcontroller have it on back side. (in
context of our web based software to see how it can be installed on
embedded machine
https://opensource.com/article/20/3/raspberry-pi-open-source-social)
- You can borrow the libraries / source files but in source files you
should mention the copyrights and attribution notice.

I think the draft can be reset into better English and few new points that
clears these types of ambiguities?
Maybe it should be mentioned in license that it is suitable for web based
applications?

On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 1:28 AM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> On 3/27/20 11:41 AM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> > 1. Must they be retained in source code distributions?
> > 2. Must they be included in binary distributions?
> > 3. Must they be presented to the user of the software in any fashion?
> >
> > (1) is quite common and completely acceptable.
> >
> > (2) is also quite common and completely acceptable.
> >
> > (3) is not common, and by common interpretation of the OSD it is not
> > acceptable because it disallows a particular type of modification of
> > the software. OSD-compliant licenses allow recipients to make any
> > modifications they wish and to distribute those modified versions.
>
> It's even finer-grained than that, because we consciously approved the
> GPLv3 despite its attribution notice requirement.
>
> The reason why the GPLv3 was acceptable was that the notice requirement
> was flexible; that is, notice is only required if the derivative work is
> already presenting other information to the user, and the exact format
> of the notification is not defined.
>
> Contrast this with the OSSNL, which *requires* a splash screen.  This
> means that:
>
> - I can't run OSSNL-licensed software on any "headless" machine
> - I can't run OSSNL-licensed software in an embedded context
> - I can't borrow useful libraries out of OSSNL-licensed software and use
> them in a program that has no GUI
>
> This makes it a clear violation of OSD#10.
>
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200328/7fc74ece/attachment-0001.html>