Guilherme C. Hazan wrote:

Just read carefully their page:

ESL: Enterprise Source License

OSL: OEM Source License

None is an OSI approved license. In particular, the Enterprise Source
License is certainly not open-source since it does not allow to
distribute modified versions.

It is not the first time that the term "open-source" in used with a
different meaning of the OSI definition.

Sure, but why the OSI logo at the main page???

Good question... I did not notice it!

Can i also create a license that is not OSI and place the logo at the main
page? That could make my users happy. ;-D

Alex Rousskov is right that we say that we do not know exactly what is the OEM license. It could be an open source approved license, but I wonder why do not use the original name then. I jump too quickly to conclusions, sorry.

We learn a bit more at

Part of their product come from the Apache project, whose code is open-source and should normally remain open-source. We don't know the exact license terms for the rest of their product, when you buy the OEM License.

It would be interesting to ask them for more details. But to my opinion, such a practice is certainly not the best one...


license-discuss archive is at

Reply via email to