Hot answers tagged

23

(Update 2019-03-09: MongoDB retracted the license from OSI review.) Does the SSPL have a chance of getting OSI-approved? Yes, of course there's a chance, though currently it looks like a rather slim one. The SSPL is significantly stricter than the AGPL. The SSPL puts additional conditions on […] offering a service the value of which entirely or ...


22

It's not that OSI (the Open Source Initiative) is particularly magical or their blessing required, but that license proliferation is a problem, and the list of OSI-approved licenses helps solve this. The OSI themselves released a proliferation report about a decade ago, describing three main issues. Too many options make it hard to choose a license. As we ...


9

Their Open Source Definition doesn't mention "proprietary software" explicitly, but their requirements for calling something "open source" seem to preclude any proprietary software from calling itself "open source": 1. Free Redistribution The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an ...


7

"Open Source" is not a formally defined term, so there are various definitions. Some might interpret it literally and apply it to any software whose source code is published (without necessarily any granted rights, e.g., to distribute it), some might apply it to any software that comes with certain not necessarily well-defined freedoms, some might apply it ...


7

The Creative Commons licenses aren't approved simply because they weren't designed to operate on code.1 Software has different components, especially source code and compiled code, which the Creative Commons licenses weren't exactly designed for (CC licenses are primarily designed for media). You're probably wondering why the content of the OSI site is ...


6

The OSI, and Open Source Movement in general, views proprietary software as having its place, and able to co-exist with FOSS, and advocates for FOSS as a matter of pragmatism rather than ethics. One example of this type of pragmatic argument is the essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar. As a movement created from and in response to the FSF's antagonism towards ...


6

If I understand correctly, what you're concerned about is that other people will take your free software, change it in a way that makes it unreliable, and either convey it or provide it as a service to unsuspecting end-users who then assume it works just like the software they know you wrote. This is a question of brand identity, scientific implications ...


5

Besides the trademark protection that is explained in the answer from @MadHatter, the (A)GPL license also allows you to place certain additional terms. One of those allowed additional terms is c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different ...


5

According to a recent slashdot post Bruce Perens has declared: The "Coherent Open Source" plan asks creators of new work to place it under one of only three licenses: The Affero GPL 3, LGPL3, or Apache 2. These three were chosen because they are all compatible with each other, are all approved of by both OSI and FSF, and they provide a range of ...


5

I would like to first make clear that the Open Source Initiative (OSI) doesn't actually define a standard. Instead, they say the following: There are many definitions of "Open Standard". We don't try to define it ourselves, but we know that if you can't implement an Open Standard under an Open Source License, it's not open enough for us. Basically, they'...


5

Just about the best term for it you have already mentioned. FLOSS is a fairly widely-used acronym for software that is both free and open-source. You can also use FOSS, but there is an important note about FLOSS: Libre, in French or Spanish, refers to 'free' in the way that we refer to it when saying 'free as in speech'. It means liberty, not lack of cost. ...


4

It depends on how strictly you interpret the term "open source". If you go with the strictest definition, Open Source is a term defined by the OSI so naturally OSI approval is required. However, as you've hinted at, the approval process is somewhat different from the Open Source Definition. Among the differences are: when OSI disapproves of a license ...


4

Yes, if the software uses a license that is approved by the OSI, you follow the rules "regarding the logo’s appearance" from OSI’s Logo Usage Guidelines, and you follow OSI’s Trademark Guidelines. Source: the first section of their Logo Usage Guidelines says (bold emphasis mine): The OSI logo is a trademark of Open Source Initiative. In order to protect ...


4

I don't think that you will get sued, but the Creative Commons FAQ "recommend[s] against using Creative Commons licenses for software." The FAQ goes on to say, Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or ...


3

The OSI doesn't say anything because the OSI is not trying to persuade the world that only Free/Libre software is ethical. It's merely trying to standardize the definitions and advocate for its advantages.


3

Putting a copyright text for license with the source code does not normally complete the licensing process According to the GPL, it does: If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms. To do ...


3

When I read this it makes me think that a developer cannot release the same code under two different licenses, for example, have the code in GPL while also releasing a "commercial version" under a commercial license. The problem is that you are reading the Open Source Definition as constraining the behavior of developers. It does not. Rather, it ...


2

First, you need to determine if what you want to do would make it non-Open Source or non-Free Software. Fortunately, the Open Source Definition has you covered, specifically item #4, key part italicized - From https://opensource.org/osd Integrity of The Author's Source Code - The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form ...


2

Yes, under certain conditions. The bottom of the OSI website says that website materials are licensed under CC-BY. This generally means you can use them, including the logo. However, there are special considerations for the logo because it is also a trademark. In general, if you're using the logo in good faith for a reasonable purpose, you should be OK (...


2

The FSF has a process to approve licenses they consider free. OSI has a process to approve licenses that they consider open. A requirement for the FSF to consider a license free is that it is open, so all free licenses are open source licenses. But not all licenses that have been approved by the FSF have also be approved by OSI. Usually this is because ...


1

If the project is all your own work, or any contributors have clearly agreed that their contributions are also licensed under CC BY-NC-SA, then I don't see any major problem. There certainly aren't any grounds for being sued merely over that choice of licence. My calculator runs code which is the work of a proper company, and is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. ...


1

This guideline is aimed at things like bloatware installers. Suppose I make two open-source products, xginx and Flapache. Flapache has really taken off and is an industry-standard tool, but xginx is languishing in the backwaters of the unknown. In an effort to promote it, I might start bundling it with Flapache - if you use my installer to install Flapache, ...


1

No, that would be a clear violation of the first freedom of the Free Software Definition: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The FSD and OSD are essentially the same, so we use the clearer language here to interpret the OSD.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible