Watcom, not Watfor And to be clear, OSI lists that in the "non-reusable" licenses, as in they aren't general licenses that anyone but the original authors use.
Similarly the other "reciprocal" ones that do not allow modifications to be private should never have been approved. Thankfully, I don't think they are used in practice. They seem to all be in the OSI's list of superseded or deprecated or similar. So, in practice OSI-approved is not strictly adequate but it appears that 100% of the actual licenses ever used on a site like Sourceforge are all truly free software licenses. How much do we care about this distinction? In contrast to other hosts that actually host non-free-software, Sourceforge's OSI-approved requirement has led in practice to be effectively a free-software-requirement. I'm not aware of any actual use of the obscure non-free OSI-approved licenses for current software. Of course, the OSI could approve of new non-free licenses, and that would be an additional and more serious problem. On 2021-04-17 8:40 p.m., Richard Stallman wrote: > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > > > although the website itself does not list specific licenses, > > still, the sourceforge licensing requirements are more libre > > than what is typical... > > so, unless > > the OSI approves some non-free licenses, sourceforge probably > > satisfies A4, where most others would not > > The OSI has approved several non-libre licenses. > One of them is the Reciprocal Public License. > Another is the Open Watfor license. > > So this doesn't entirely satisfy A4, but comes closer. > > >
