[License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS

[Hillel Coren]

Thanks for your feedback!

> If something in the code requires a license key or payment in order to
function,
> then the code is not open source, it is proprietary.

With the AAL license we add a "Powered by.." message in the footer, all of
the app's functionality is enabled. We offer a license key which is used to
remove our branding rather than enable any features.

If the AAL license is deprecated it will force us to sell features which as
mentioned previously I believe is worse for everyone. The only benefit is
we'll likely make more money from our self host community (vs our hosted
community) which is not our goal.


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:37 AM Syed Arsalan Hussain Shah <
arsalan at buddyexpress.net> wrote:

> I would also like to have AAL 2.0 license.
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:40 PM Hillel Coren <hillelcoren at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> An AAL 2.0 license sounds great, thank you for the clarification!
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:25 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/29/20 7:01 AM, Hillel Coren wrote:
>>> > It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
>>> > developers will either choose a different OSI approved license or
>>> change
>>> > their software from being labeled 'OSS' to 'Source-available software'.
>>> > I'd argue in practice many developers (ourselves included) would
>>> instead
>>> > choose to share less code.
>>>
>>> Please read the whole of the AAL discussion so that you can understand
>>> the difference between "attribution" and "badgeware".
>>>
>>> One option for the AAL would be to create the AAL 2.0, which would fix
>>> the badgeware clause, replacing it with a proper attribution clause.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Josh Berkus
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>>
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200330/315cff70/attachment.html>