Update LICENSE #1937
Update LICENSE #1937
Conversation
|
Hello @pg83 :) I have the same preocupations than you, but cleary not the same skills in licencing 👍🏼 |
Apache 2.0 license has exact text and meaning. If you add some more requirement to any aspect of software usage (including copying, modification, redistribution) you should not call this Apache 2.0 license to not mislead others. For example Apache 2.0 licensed software considered free (in terms of FSF/OSI) by the community, but terraform-aws-eks is not free anymore (at least by DFSG or OSI requirements) and could not be included into free distributions. I should also mention, that the requirement in subject is some sort of virus (as in copyleft licenses, but other way) and this could bring some licensing issues to derived products. |
Could you elaborate on why you believe its no longer free? |
New terms of this license effectively ban usage of this product by Russian programmers, cause it is illegal in Russia to accept this terms. And, by 5 and 6 clause of https://opensource.org/osd, this can not be considered as open source license. |
I think you are still referring to the terms/wording of the license which I did not refer to - my question was - why do you believe this project is not free for people to use? there are no monetary requirements for consumption, its published in the public domain - so why is this viewed as not "free" anymore? |
Because "free" and "open source" have precise meaning, and new license terms do not comply with them. |
As a member of Debian community, I'll appeal to DFSG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines but Perens's OSI criteria are quite the same. As in 5th paragraph, license should not discriminate person of group. There are people in the world (and not only Russian world) who do not agree with 3 points in subject. Or even with any one of them. It's ethical question, but they could believe whatever they wants. This license effectively disallows them to use the software, thus the license could not be considered free. Dixi. |
Sorry, man, but you missuse legal term. This software is not published in "public domain", it's under copyright according to the license. |
|
Let me make it clear. Russia invaded Ukraine (my homeland, if it is still important) but before there was Crimea, DNR, LNR. If you want to use the source code of this project as well as other If you are "outside of politics" or any other BS, I recommend you to follow after the Russian Warship that knows the way. End of discussion! Glory to Ukraine! 🇺🇦 |
|
I have updated the wording to make sure that it is the same open-source license as before - https://github.com/terraform-aws-modules/terraform-aws-eks#additional-information-for-users-from-russia-and-belarus |
Description
After fad350d
this project can not be considered as Apache 2.0 licenced.
Also we shoul ask https://opensource.org/ if this license now open source license at all.
Motivation and Context
Breaking Changes
This project possibly can not be used in other open source software
How Has This Been Tested?
examples/*projects