Hello Florian, On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 11:10:29AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > It's just sufficient to create uncertainty around whether it's > allowed, and provide a paid way out. People who want to use the > software will likely pay when prompted. [...] > Maybe OSI should amend the GPL and AGPL certification to say that it's > only valued if no Additional Terms are used?
I agree that the uncertainty here is enough, in practice, to keep users from actually exercising their rights of stripping further restrictions, as per *GPL-3 licenses. But if that's the case, and if we also consider guidance from OSI useful in countering such uncertainty, than we should use OSI's voice to inform users about their rights of stripping further restrictions. That would be a much useful policy action than narrowing down the set of *GPL-3 license variants which are endorsed by OSI. Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli . [email protected] . upsilon.cc/zack _. ^ ._ Full professor of Computer Science o o o \/|V|\/ Télécom Paris, Polytechnic Institute of Paris o o o </> <\> Co-founder & CTO Software Heritage o o o o /\|^|/\ Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director '" V "' _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
