4 ms·
I can't speak for the OSI, but this seems in clear violation of the Open Source definition. I'll await their word.
by davexunit 11y ago
I can't speak for the OSI, but this seems in clear violation of the Open Source definition. I'll await their word.
- dragonwriter 11y ago> I can't speak for the OSI, but this seems in clear violation of the Open Source definition. The only part of the definition that seems to be close to being violated is criteria 7 on license distribution (since the license is not sublicensable, but allows redistribution), but since the license from the original copyright holder applies to every recipient of the software, including recipients by redistribution, it seems to be met. EDIT: Actually, I think I may have misread; its not clear that the "Fair Source License" allows redistribution of modified versions (it allows modification and redistribution, but not clearly distribution of modified versions. So that would be fatal.)
- richardfontana 11y agoI am an OSI board director. Generally the OSI does not comment on licenses that have not been submitted for approval. FWIW, I reviewed the license and I agree that it is clearly inconsistent with the Open Source Definition (and with generally accepted notions of what free software and open source licenses are).
- sqs 11y agoSourcegraph CEO here. Just in case there's any confusion, Fair Source is not intended to be OSI compliant, so I would not be surprised if it does not meet their criteria.