Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This license is said to be OSI certified Open Source, but I'd like a second > opinion. It's too much legalese for me to deal with this morning:
> http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/ There's a general "you must monitor our website" clause. It could be construed discrimination against people who have no net connection. Whether not having a net connection is a field of endeavor is doubtful, but the very presence of the clause seems to imply that AT&T reserves the right to unilaterally change the license terms. There's a clause saying that if I create and distribute a patch (modified sources are not permitted at all) I must tell AT&T about it. Such clauses are not usually considered DFSG-free. And .. tadah: there's a clause that revokes the license as soon as "notice of a non-frivolous claim by a third party relating to the Source Code or Capsule is posted on the Website". That is manifestly nonfree. There's a "you must comply with U.S. export laws" clause. It wouldn't surprise me if they got the OSI certification nevertheless. > Interestingly, there is this accompnying binary license: which is not free at all, but I don't think that is directly relevant as the main license in itself offers permission to distribute original and modified binaries. -- Henning Makholm "You propose to avoid dying? I will be interested to hear the method you plan for this endeavour."
