4 ms·
> it's not "FOSS" at all Source? I don't remember the url, but the other day someone posted a link to an opinion posted by someone at OSI back when Elastic was
by frenchy 6y ago
> it's not "FOSS" at all
Source? I don't remember the url, but the other day someone posted a link to an opinion posted by someone at OSI back when Elastic was thinking of getting certification that basically said: "This licence would probably satisify the OSI defintion, but it's a bad license because it's too vague and you should use the AGPL-3 instead".
- lewiscollard 6y agoI have not read the opinion you refer to, but Elastic themselves admit "it is not an OSI approved license and is not considered open source".[0] > but it's a bad license because it's too vague That has historically[1] been a reason for the free & open source communities to reject licenses; nobody wants cavernous uncertainties about what you can and cannot do under a license's terms. [0] https://www.elastic.co/blog/license-change-clarification https://www.elastic.co/blog/license-change-clarification [1] See, e.g., why the FSF rejected the original Artistic License. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLi...