New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New License Request: Froala Open Web Design License #611

Closed
vmarkovtsev opened this Issue Feb 9, 2018 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@vmarkovtsev

vmarkovtsev commented Feb 9, 2018

Full Name: Froala Open Web Design License
Short Identifier: Please choose for me.
URL: https://github.com/froala/design-blocks/blob/dev/LICENSE
OSI-approved: don't know

@jlovejoy

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jlovejoy commented Mar 22, 2018

to be reviewed on upcoming legal call.
@vmarkovtsev - can you please provide further information re: "Provide a short explanation regarding the need for this license or exception to be included on the SPDX License List, including identifying at least one program that uses this license."?
thanks

@vmarkovtsev

This comment has been minimized.

vmarkovtsev commented Mar 23, 2018

Sure. Explanation:

I found this license in "Froala Design Blocks" project - https://github.com/froala/design-blocks
It has more than 10,000 stars on GitHub and thus must be popular.

@wking

This comment has been minimized.

Member

wking commented Mar 23, 2018

Short Identifier: Please choose for me.

Maybe Frola-OWDL-1.0 (acronyming most of the upstream title).

OSI-approved: don't know

Google is not aware of any OSI discussion, and the license isn't listed here, so I'm pretty sure this is not OSI approved.

@bradleeedmondson

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

bradleeedmondson commented Apr 19, 2018

Discussed on legal call today, but did not reach consensus. Need to discuss again on next legal call.

This is arguably not a FOSS license, since it prohibits unbundled commercial distribution.

@bradleeedmondson bradleeedmondson removed this from the 3.2 release milestone Apr 19, 2018

@jlovejoy jlovejoy added this to the 3.4 release milestone Oct 18, 2018

@swinslow

This comment has been minimized.

Collaborator

swinslow commented Nov 1, 2018

This is based on OFL-1.1. OFL-1.1 has been considered open by OSI and free by FSF.

Notably, though, OFL-1.1's restriction is just that it cannot be sold by itself. The FSF guidance linked above says that "Since a simple Hello World program will satisfy the requirement, it is harmless."

By contrast, the Froala license in 3(a) adds restrictions on what it can be used for: Neither the Work nor any of its individual components, in Original or Modified Versions, may be . . . (ii) used for website or app generators; (iii) used to create templates, themes, and plugins for sale.

Based on that, I'm inclined to say that this does not really meet the current SPDX license inclusion principles. I'm of course open to others' thoughts!

@jlovejoy

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jlovejoy commented Nov 1, 2018

I'd agree @swinslow - clearly restricts specific uses, which makes it not open source.

@wking

This comment has been minimized.

Member

wking commented Nov 1, 2018

Isn't CC-BY-NC-ND and in the same boat? And we register it. So I dunno what the line is, but it doesn't seem to be Open Source or Four Freedoms.

@jlovejoy

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jlovejoy commented Nov 1, 2018

yes, all the CC-BY-NC-ND is on there. We came up with the inclusion guidelines after the first few versions of the license list, and the CC licenses were added before that (by my memory).

@bradleeedmondson

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

bradleeedmondson commented Nov 1, 2018

I'm not sure yet whether I am for or against adding this to the SPDX license list. Weighing against, it is not a free and open-source license in that it prohibits reuse in the same market/vertical in which the company operates (website templates). On the other hand it seems somewhat popular, so it's possible there are lots of sites/projects out there with this codebase/asset base.

This might be a good entry for the floated (but not yet decided upon) "unofficial list of commonly found non-open-source licenses."

To be discussed further by legal team either on this issue or on the next call.

@jlovejoy

This comment has been minimized.

Contributor

jlovejoy commented Dec 13, 2018

as noted above, due to the restrictions on types of use, this is not an open source license, so not accepted.

@jlovejoy jlovejoy closed this Dec 13, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment