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

[Florian Weimer]

* 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.

Not sure what that's supposed to mean.

I consider the AGPL a failure because it's almost never applied to
software which has a built-in compliance mechanism.  Given how it's
used, it's unnecessarily difficult to make modifications to a public
service, which in turn discourages the creation of more free software.
If the software automatically offered its source code to the parties
the author deems should have access, I personally wouldn't have much
of a problem with it (if the software actually implements a network
service).

I don't know what motivated the opposition to the AGPL at the time.
(The AGPL inherits the cloud computing exception from the GPL, after
all.)  It seems rather irrelevant today, given the reluctance these
companies have to engage with GPL or even LGPLv2.1 software these
days.

>> 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?

Sorry, I meant non-permissive additional terms.  Does ASLv2
compatibility require non-permissive additional terms?

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

Indeed, I did forget about that construct.

Non-permissive terms need individual review, in my opinion, given what
we've seen over the years (and not just in the AGPL context).

> 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.

It goes against more than two decades of DFSG (and presumably OSD)
analysis, where conflicting and unclear terms have always been held
against the licensor, making the work non-free.