Vaclav Petras scripsit: > the Non-Profit Open Software License [1] has non-profit amendment which > discriminates against for-profit, i.e. commercial use.
Actually it simply forbids redistribution by commercial entities, not use. > It seems to me that this clear violates the Open Source Definition > [2] because it discriminates against a specific field of endeavor. Can > somebody please explain to me why OSI lists the license as open source > [3]? Is there something I'm missing? It's because everything licensed under the NPOSL is automatically licensed under the OSL as well, which unquestionably is an open-source license. So if a commercial entity wishes to redistribute code (modified or not) that it receives under the NPOSL, it may do so under the OSL. This does not quite violate OSD #3, because the license is not pure NPOSL but NPOSL+OSL. But it's a marginal case, and perhaps it wouldn't be approved today. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. --Hal Abelson _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
