On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:58:16PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote: > 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.
Actually, section 7 of GPLv3 was intended to allow a limited form of badgeware (as well as certain other kinds of restrictions). But the example cited by the original poster: http://www.nopcommerce.com/licensev3.aspx goes well beyond what the FSF intended to authorize. Unfortunately, I have seen a number of such misuses of GPLv3/AGPLv3 7(b). As for adding a similarly-broad badgeware requirement on top of GPLv2, it would be enough of a stretch to argue that limited GPLv3-acceptable badgeware provisions are acceptable under GPLv2. I believe that the OSI's approval of CPAL (the license you may be intentionally not naming) was, in retrospect, wrongly decided. - RF _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss