[License-discuss] Does the LinShare "attribution" notice violate OSD?

[Simon Phipps]

I agree that all looks very worrying and probably disqualifying, but the
trademark terms in clause 2 are even worse as they prohibit you from
rebranding the software as would be essential to fork:

Using these trademarks without the (TM) trademark notice symbol, removing
> these trademarks from the software, modifying these trademarks in any
> manner except proportional scaling (under the proviso that such scaling
> keeps the trademark clearly legible), or using these trademarks to promote
> any products or services commercially, or on product packaging, websites,
> books, documentation or any other publication without a written, signed
> agreement with Linagora is strictly prohibited, and constitutes an
> infringement of Linagora intellectual property rights over these trademarks.
>

I can't see any this new license resulting from the AGPL and the additional
terms would be approved by license-review@

Cheers

Simon
(in a personal capacity)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 7:10 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Someone just forwarded me this:
>
> https://github.com/linagora/linshare/blob/master/COPYING.md
>
> Take a look at "additional terms", esp:
>
> > In accordance with Section 7 and subsection (b) of the GNU Affero
> General Public License version 3, these Appropriate Legal Notices consist
> in the interface display of the "LinShare™" trademark/logo, the interface
> display of the "Libre & Free" mention, and the interface display of the
> "You are using the Free and Open Source version of LinShare™, powered by
> Linagora © 2009--2020. Contribute to Linshare R&D by subscribing to an
> Enterprise offer!". The latter notice must also be displayed in any
> asynchronous message sent with the Program, for example e-mails which will
> contain this notice in their footer. Retaining these Appropriate Legal
> Notices in any and all Free and Open Source versions of LinShare and
> LinShare software Programs is mandatory notwhistanding any other terms and
> conditions.
>
> ... this is the most burdensome example of an attribution notice I've
> ever seen.  Feels like it's a violation of 10, and possibly 6 or 8 as
> well. Thoughts?
>
> --
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20220919/04d189aa/attachment.html>