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

[Daniel Villarreal]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


On 08/03/16 12:09 PM, Bob Jonkman wrote:
> Rudolf wrote:
>>> [...] 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[...]
> 
> 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... --Bob, who is not a lawyer but
> just as paranoid[...]

I wouldn't even look at the code, before checking with the legal
department, and getting more opinions. There are so many licenses
available...
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

> On 2016-03-08 11:35 AM, Stephen Paul Weber wrote:
>>> [...] 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. [...]
>>> 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.[...]

I'd want to know why they _didn't_ go with an existing license-type.

This is not legal advice. Please consult someone qualified to give
advice on these matters.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW3zt6AAoJEPJRiTioPntJxzQIAKC8nlW8hinHBhIG1hC+1tS7
OGUSHGEJ2jq2x/16hOI4L0G7DqU5hp7PuHeQB6YEiK3UuLH0F6Ypq3ZSygEf/7fv
IouhuYNrXgKMvav6KyTKrwWx8m6pi5dZHYuS3d1WOzisdjpdutG2efgYOCeAaQn3
dIYWg5w1vLuFOShmUNcpc3e1Cini7dbSx9AHCgBrXFQI8QIB8ocoy/7yQjiCqLlm
cARHvIC4ZwnkVPY9c0jWII3jslEoLQOnvs7uIvuI+eAxqVbtaX5sgyUlmJsJE2k1
XlwegKQcYd/KQk7WmlrqFoN/nWq8sMcyOpxx365c93SkITLDEb+8rJ4O3+Xg9gg=
=wTjh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----