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

[McCoy Smith]

On 10/4/2024 10:10 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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.
>
FWIW, Artistic-1.0 (which is OSI approved) sort of has this concept (as 
may other OSI approved licenses)

5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of this 
Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this Package. 
You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. *However, you may 
distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) 
programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution 
provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own.*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241004/afee9a6f/attachment.htm>