Quoting ldr ldr ([email protected]): > Thanks, I've seen it in a few open-source projects, such as: > > http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx > http://www.mvcforum.com/license
Those are not open source. Moreover: > But this isn't well received by the open-source community, and would not be > OSI approved? "Badgeware' licensing was heavily lobbied for by a little incestuous^W group of Web 2.0 startups for a while, several years back. One watered-down example was eventually approved mostly because -- my interpretation -- the amount of intrusion onto the user experience had been cut back to a modest mandatory notice on one screen only. As you have noticed, some firms have now adopted the clever if sleazy -- my interpretation -- ploy of purporting to use GPLv3 but sliding a mandatory badgeware notice requirement for every single UI page by claiming those are Additional Terms within the meaning of GPLv3 clause 7. I personally think that is a total crock, and hope it gives rise to litigation at some point: Clause 7 is a mechanism for adding _exceptions_ to the conditions GPLv3 would otherwise require. The dodge of claiming you can add _restrictions_ via that clause or similar methods such as hanging a restriction off GPLv2 -- and the sheer dishonesty of pretending that is still open source -- almost certainly doesn't fool anyone. I respect the publishers of outright proprietary software in many cases a great deal, e.g., Opera Software ASA, my second-favourite set of crazy Norwegians. By contrast, companies that try to pull the above sort of stunt, well: not so much. -- Cheers, "He who hesitates is frost." Rick Moen -- Inuit proverb [email protected] McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
