[License-review] AFN-License

[Carlo Piana]

I agree 3.1 looks flat out to be in violation of #6. Probably, it's the wrong solution to a questionable problem.

Sorry

Carlo





----- Messaggio originale -----
> Da: "Josh Berkus" <josh at berkus.org>
> A: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Giovedì, 14 agosto 2025 22:52:26
> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] AFN-License

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily
> those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source
> Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> 
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org