John, thanks -- having this analysis helps a lot. That language in the Frameworx license is very odd; I wonder what the backstory is. I can't see now what the motivation might have been.
-K John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> writes: >Karl Fogel scripsit: > >> Adaptive Public License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/APL-1.0 > >This license was pretty much beyond my comprehension when it was first >brought up, and it still is. > >> Frameworx License http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Frameworx-1.0 > >The issue here seems to be clauses 1d and 3b: > > 1. (d) Value-Added Services means any commercial or fee-based > software-related service, including without limitation: system or > application development or consulting; technical or end-user support > or training; distribution maintenance, configuration or versioning; > or outsourced, hosted or network-based application services. > > 3. (b) Any Value-Added Services that you offer or provide, > directly or indirectly, in relation to any Downstream Distribution > shall be offered and provided on commercial terms that are > reasonably commensurate to the fair market value of such Value-Added > Services. In addition, the terms and conditions on which any such > Value Added Services are so offered or provided shall be consistent > with, and shall fully support, the intent and purpose of this > License Agreement. > >These are funky terms, but they only require that such services >be provided on commercial terms (the "reasonably commensurate" >stuff is supererogatory, since nobody would accept commercial terms >incommensurate with fair market value), and in no way restrict the >offering on other terms provided they support the intent and purpose of >this License Agreement, which has to do with making the original code >freely available. > >> OCLC Public Research License 2.0 >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/OCLC-2.0 > >I don't see any problems with this license. > >> Reciprocal Public License > >This license is like the APL, but more so. > >> Ricoh Source Code Public License >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/RSCPL > >This is a mildly edited version of MPL-1.0, plus a variant of the >"obnoxious BSD advertising clause": > > 5.1. Advertising Materials. > > All advertising materials mentioning features or use of the Governed > Code must display the following acknowledgement: "This product > includes software developed by Ricoh Silicon Valley, Inc." > >Now the 4-clause BSD has never gotten OSI approval, though it is listed >as FSF-free. But I don't see how it contravenes any of the OSD clauses. > >> Sybase Open Watcom Public License 1.0 >> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/Watcom-1.0 > >I don't see anything wrong with this MPL variant either. > >All IMHO. IANAL, TINLA. _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss