The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by AstralStorm on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @01:23PM (#17820274)

In other words, it is no longer Apache license and it is NOT ALLOWED to use Apache Software Foundation trademark Apache.

Call it Indian license or what not.

This is unlike GPL which allows the use of the name as long as the clauses are not restrictive.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by christefano on Thursday August 23, 2018 @01:20PM (#17828982)

> Call it Indian license or what not.

Come on, really? I'm sure you could have picked a less offensive example than "Indian license".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by riffraff on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @02:12PM (#17820627)

how can extra clauses not be restrictive? I mean, if they don't add new restrictions, what do they do?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by toyg on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @02:21PM (#17820717)

Remove restrictions? For example, the BSD license requires attribution, so you could have an extra clause that basically says "attribution is not required anywhere".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by beaner on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @02:20PM (#17820701)

I guess a clause could specify exemptions to previous clauses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by codeflo on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @03:51PM (#17821530)

Exactly. This used to be quite common, see for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception

[ Parent | on HN ]