[License-review] AFN-License

[Josh Berkus]

On 7/24/25 01:05, 1248044293 via License-review wrote:
> While the license explicitly prohibits the /direct sale of the software 
> itself/ or its derivatives as a standalone product (e.g., selling 
> copies, activation codes, or subscriptions where the software is the 
> core value proposition), it /emphatically permits and encourages 
> commercial use/ through value-added services. These include, but are not 
> limited to, SaaS offerings, technical support, custom development, and 
> integration into hardware products, provided the basic software remains 
> freely obtainable to users.

I don't think you understand OSD6.  These terms are a direct and 
unambiguous violation of OSD6.  When we say any field of endeavor, we 
mean *any*.

It's also completely unnecessary, and problematic in actual application.

Licenses *can* require the source code to be freely available to users; 
that is, after all, what open source is about.  In practice, this makes 
direct sales of the software impractical, because, when users can build 
the software for themselves for free, they are unwilling to pay more 
than a nominal fee for the software itself.  If you look around the 
world of open source software companies, you'll find that the vast 
majority of them are already earning their living based on support, 
assurance, SaaS, and consulting.

So the gap you say the license addresses is a lot smaller than you think 
it is.

It's also problematic. Multiple companies charge for access to their 
builds of OSS software. However, if you ask them or their customers, 
what they are really selling is support and assurance and services -- 
after all, the customer can ultimately do their own build for free.  So 
are these companies charging for the software, or not?

Further complicating this is the exceptions you carve out for derived 
works which contain value-added services, as well as the many 
qualitative terms (like "substantial fee") which would need to be argued 
in court.

Realistically, this means that the only organizations your license would 
actually be restricting would be those who want to charge a flat fee for 
an unaltered build and provide no services.  I'm familiar enough with 
the Chinese software market to realize that this is an actual concern 
for you.  However, let me suggest that the kind of companies that do 
this would also not be particularly concerned with the actual terms of 
the license.

There's other strangenesses to the license, some of which are probably 
just based on the differences between international law and Chinese law, 
but the core thing you want to do seems to me to be both impractical and 
a violation of the OSD.

So, to sum up: I think I understand the actual problem you're trying to 
address, but I don't think this license is a good way to address it, nor 
do I think that we can approve it.

-- 
Josh Berkus