[License-discuss] Question: is the following paragraph in violation of OSD6

[Josh Berkus]

On 10/3/24 13:12, Lucy Brown via License-discuss wrote:
> You may distribute this Software, with or without fee, provided that you 
> do not advertise the Standard Version of this Software as a product of 
> your own.

We'd need to hash that out.  It certainly feels hinky, but I'm not sure 
whether it would be an OSD violation or not.  Generally, *requirements* 
to advertise anything aside from the licensing terms are violations of 
OSD 8 and 10.  Requirements to not advertise something?  Not sure.

That assumes that by "Standard Version" the license means "Unmodified 
source code"; if it means something else, it would depend on what. 
Regardless, it's not possible to make any real judgement without seeing 
the whole license.

The more common thing in licenses is a requirement to NOT include the 
source organization's name on modified versions.

-- 
Josh Berkus