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

[Thorsten Glaser]

Pamela Chestek dixit:

> What about "this permission notice shall be included in all copies or
> substantial portions of the Software"?

That’s the licence text itself.

> What about "If the Work includes
> a 'NOTICE' text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative
> Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the
> attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file ..." Don't those
> prohibit removal of the license text and any NOTICE file? The first is
> MIT and the second is Apache, both unequivocally open source licenses.

I don’t consider the Apache 2.0 licence OSS for this reason, and
possibly others. This is worse than advertising clauses, in practice.

(And advertising clauses are already bad enough, but at least very
limited in scope, and avoidable in excerpts, if not full forks.)

I guess it got approval by legacy rules (just like the AGPL, which
is severely stretching things, and perhaps even the GPL).

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt