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

[Bradley M. Kuhn]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> But when checking for OSD compliance, we shouldn't play this game.  If new
> licenses are unclear and appear self-contradictory, then they shouldn't be
> deemed compliant, particularly if there is still just one copyright holder
> using the license, so that it can be easily changed.  (Same for licenses
> which are overly long and complicated.)

Given how major Cloud companies lobbied OSI to declare the AGPLv3 as
OSD-non-compliant, I'm sure you'll find support for your position seeking the
OSI to reverse its decision and declare AGPLv3 non-OSD-compliant.

> Maybe OSI should amend the GPL and AGPL certification to say that it's only
> valued if no Additional Terms are used?

So, you'd propose the A/GPLv3 be accepted as OSD-compliant only when it's not
compatible with the ASLv2?

More importantly, such a position would also make GCC's license
non-OSD-compliant too.  Does it really make sense for OSI to declare GCC's
license as non-OSD-compliant?  I'm sure $AAPL would love that, of course …

Conflating additional permissions with further restrictions is precisely what
these nefarious companies want to happen in the community.

Zack had replied:
>> I agree that the uncertainty here is enough, in practice, to keep users
>> from actually exercising their rights of stripping further restrictions,
>> as per *GPL-3 licenses.

Indeed.  IMO, the best solution here would be for the OSI to join other FOSS
activists to take a stand in encouraging removal of further restrictions under
the Affero GPL.  The Neo4j situation was a huge missed opportunity
in this regard.

 -- bkuhn