|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragonwriter
2619 days ago
|
|
|
> I’d agree that Prosperity is not an open source license, but I still emphatically maintain that Parity is. It's very clearly not. > Moreover, the arguments against them I’ve heard haven’t been based in lack of free distribution or OSD 1. While I see arguments on OSD 1, I’d agree that's not the clearest problem. Clause 3 of Parity runs directly contrary to OSD 9. (Oddly enough, Parity might just be the odd license that manages to be a Free Software license without being an Open Source license, though, as the Free Software Definition doesn't have anything equivalent to OSD 9, even though the two definitions usually either both fit or both don't fit licenses.) |
|
|
You're not the only one who's said it's not, and I'm not the only one who's said it clearly is.
> Clause 3 of Parity runs directly contrary to OSD 9.
There is nothing clear about OSD 9, or at least nothing to do with the reach of copyleft:
https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul...