On Wednesday, October 8, 2025 8:01:27 PM Mountain Standard Time John Scott wrote: > I also want to draw attention to this point by Soren Stoutner: > > What makes this a little different is that it appears to claim that works > > produced using the software must also attribute the original upstream > > project and distribute a copy of the original upstream software license. It > > does *NOT* say that works produced using the software must be *licensed* > > under the original upstream license. For example, if this license were > > applied to LibreOffice, it would require that any *documents* produced by > > LibreOffice be distributed with an attribution saying it was produced using > > LibreOffice and a copy of the LibreOffice license. > I don't share this reservation—if this is being inferred from the "or any of > its associated files", I think the "associated files" is intended to refer > to files associated with the work. This should be cleared up, but as I'll > argue in a moment, this would still be DFSG-free for a couple of reasons.
The text from the license which caused me concern was: "any of its associated files that was generated in *any approach*” Is a file generated by a user using the binary an "associated file”? That isn’t language that is common in other licenses, so, as far as I know, there isn’t a standard, industry-wide acceptance of what those terms mean. I agree that if the meaning of this were cleared up my concerns could be ameliorated. I agree with you that even if they did intend this, it would probably still be DFSG-free, which I believe is what I communicated in my original email. However, as I stated before, it would make it incompatible with licenses which prevent further restrictions (like the GPL) and would also make it a license which I would personally avoid. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
