Re: [lp-ca-on] Weird license to look at

[Bob Jonkman]

Rudolf wrote:
>> So I took a look and this the weirdest modification of the BSD 
>> license because it restricts redistribution. That makes it not open
>> source or Libre right?

Stephen replied:
> This one seems unclear, but not *necessarily* nonfree.

The requirement for attribution or the restriction of the trademark
doesn't make it non-free, since it doesn't affect your ability to view,
distribute, modify or distribute modifications.

But the need for permission to distribute source code *does* make it
non-free, since permission could be denied, or worse, revoked after
you've already distributed it with prior permission.

The code may still be "Open Source", in that the code is available for
inspection, but it is not FSF-defined Free Software since it doesn't
have the freedom to distibute the code or distribute modified code.

If you're working on a commercial project, it's probably OK to look at
the source code. But I wouldn't use any of the code (CSS included) in
your own software.

Patents open up a whole new can of worms. If any of the code is patented
(can CSS be patented?) then even looking at the code could result in a
patent infringement, since any subsequent code you write could have been
based on the techniques in their code.

--Bob, who is not a lawyer but just as paranoid.


Bob Jonkman <address@hidden>          Phone: +1-519-635-9413
SOBAC Microcomputer Services             http://sobac.com/sobac/
Software   ---   Office & Business Automation   ---   Consulting
GnuPG Fngrprnt:04F7 742B 8F54 C40A E115 26C2 B912 89B0 D2CC E5EA


On 2016-03-08 11:35 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
> Somebody claiming to be Rudolf Olah wrote:
>> Someone is writing an open source event ticketing platform and the 
>> company I now work at is in the same business so it's pretty 
>> important for me to make sure I can even look at the code without 
>> violating a license. So I took a look and this the weirdest 
>> modification of the BSD license because it restricts 
>> redistribution. That makes it not open source or Libre right? I 
>> wonder what happens if I just look and copy the css style sheet
>> and themes of their site, I would have to put "powered by
>> Attendize" somewhere?
> 
> Custom licenses almost always go badly.  This one seems unclear, but
>  not *necessarily* nonfree.

On 2016-03-08 07:53 AM, Rudolf Olah wrote:
> Someone is writing an open source event ticketing platform and the 
> company I now work at is in the same business so it's pretty 
> important for me to make sure I can even look at the code without 
> violating a license. So I took a look and this the weirdest 
> modification of the BSD license because it restricts redistribution.
>  That makes it not open source or Libre right? I wonder what happens
>  if I just look and copy the css style sheet and themes of their 
> site, I would have to put "powered by Attendize" somewhere? It also 
> does what Mozilla does (or used to do?) which is restrict the use of 
> a trademark. Text of the license in case it changes:
> 
> Attribution Assurance LicenseCopyright (c) 2016 by Dave Earley 
> (address@hidden)http://www.attendize.com All Rights Reserved
> 
> ATTRIBUTION ASSURANCE LICENSE (adapted from the original BSD 
> license)Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or 
> without modification, are permitted provided that the conditions 
> below are met. These conditions require a modest attribution to 
> Attendize.com. The hope is that its promotional value may help
> justify the thousands of dollars in otherwise billable time invested
> in writing this and other freely available,open-source software.
> 
> 1. Redistributions of source code, in whole or part and with or 
> without modification requires the express permission of the author 
> and must prominently display "Powered by Attendize" or the Attendize 
> logo in verifiable form with hyperlink to said site.
> 
> 2. Neither the name nor any trademark of the Author may be used to
> endorse or promote products derived from this software without 
> specific prior written permission.
> 
> 3. Users are entirely responsible, to the exclusion of the Author and
> any other persons, for compliance with (1) regulations set by owners
> or administrators of employed equipment, (2) licensing terms of any
> other software, and (3) local regulations regarding use, including 
> those regarding import, export, and use of encryption software.
> 
> THIS FREE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR "AS IS" ANDANY EXPRESS 
> OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED 
> WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,EFFECTS OF 
> UNAUTHORIZED OR MALICIOUS NETWORK ACCESS;PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE 
> GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS 
> INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSEDAND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER 
> IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR 
> OTHERWISE)ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN
> IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
> 
>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature