[Tomte]

> By every definition this is open source software.

No, it's not.

"If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses.

It also follows that it runs foul of GPL3's prohibition on additional restrictions.

I guess it's supposed to be a user-friendly wording about using it in your own development (this is GPL code, you can link it with your GPL code).

But it actually means that unless you're developing open source software, you may not use it. Not even unmodified.

It's probably not what the creator means, though.

[CuriousCosmic]

> "If you are creating an open source application" is a usage restriction/discrimination. That's not allowed for open source licenses.

No it is not. "If you are creating an open source application you may use the software under the GPLv3 or later" means "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license".

This is just licensing all the software under 3 separate licenses:

1. The GPLv3 or later with no added conditions.

2. For non-commercial, closed source use you can use it under https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/

3. For commercial, closed source use you can buy a commercial license.

That's fully acceptable for GPLv3 and open source licensing in general as long as the software can be licensed by you under each of those 3 licenses separately (i.e. the dependencies are all compatible with each license and all contributors have either signed over their rights or have documented agreement to the above licensing conditions).

This is for the exact same reason that you can find dual GPLv3 (or AGPLv3) and closed source commercial licensed projects. It takes a bit of work on the IP management side but it's perfectly acceptable.

[Tomte]

> "if you want to comply with the GPLv3+, you may use it under that license".

That's what they mean, but the wording does not support that. There is no way to use it under GPL, without developing something.

[CuriousCosmic]

The wording is weird but it's fully possible to use it open source.

You use it personally, you have access to the source and can modify it unrestricted. GPLv3 fulfilled.

You share the application with someone else, they get the same notice and get the same rights. GPLv3 fulfilled.

[Tomte]

Wrong.

> "If you are creating an open source application"

If I'm not creating an open source application, then BrowserBox does not grant me the GPL license.

It's plainly written. I don't know why you keep arguing.

[keepamovin]

Yes!

[CuriousCosmic]

If you wanted to improve the wording of your licensing, I'd do the following:

In the licensing section for your README.md:

    BrowserBoxPro is licensed separately under the following licenses:
    
    - GNU General Public License v3 (or later) (linked to LICENSES/GPL-3.0.txt)
    - Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 (link to LICENSES/PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0.txt)
    - BrowserBox Pro perpetual commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Perpetual.txt).
    - BrowserBox Pro subscription commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Subscription.txt).

    What does this mean for me?

    Are you using BrowserBox Pro as it ships?

        You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3 (or later).

    Are you modifying BrowserBox Pro or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro and willing to license those changes under the GPL?

        You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3 (or later).

    Are you using BrowserBox Pro, modifying BrowserBox Pro, or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro in a non-commercial capacity but do not wish to comply with the license terms of the GPLv3?

        You may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0.0.

    Are you using BrowserBox Pro, modifying BrowserBox Pro, or developing software that uses BrowserBox Pro in a commercial capacity but do not wish to comply with the license terms of the GPLv3?

        You may purchase a perpetual or subscription based commercial license (link to commercial licensing docs).

LICENSE.md:

     SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0-or-later OR PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0 OR BBP-Commercial-Perpetual OR BBP-Commercial-Subscription

    BrowserBoxPro is licensed separately under the following licenses:
    
    - GNU General Public License v3 (or later) (linked to LICENSES/GPL-3.0.txt)
    - Polyform Non-Commercial License 1.0 (link to LICENSES/PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0.txt)
    - BrowserBox Pro perpetual commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Perpetual.txt).
    - BrowserBox Pro subscription commercial license (link to LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Subscription.txt).

Download the following linked files and put them under the names listed in the repo.

- LICENSES/GPL-3.0.txt: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

- LICENSES/PolyForm-Noncommercial-1.0.0.txt: https://polyformproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/PolyF...

Then put your perpetual license and subscription license's legal text in the following files:

- LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Perpetual.txt

- LICENSES/LicenseRef-BBP-Commercial-Subscription.txt

-----

I think that should clear up any confusion (I am not a lawyer but am decently familiar with licensing). You could also include a "or contact us for special licensing" section like you did for OEM licensing in the README.

[keepamovin]

jacoblambda I have made a PR^0 with your suggestions, did you want to come over to make a token change so you can sign our CLA, or are you OK for me to use this and give your agreement in a HN comment here (or at the link if you're bothered) to our CLA: https://cla-assistant.io/dosyago/BrowserBox?pullRequest=240

0: https://github.com/dosyago/BrowserBoxPro/pull/240

[CuriousCosmic]

I signed the CLA and left a comment on the PR.

[keepamovin]

Thank you so much!! Very good, I invite you to amend to your author because it's only right that you're a contributor.

[keepamovin]

Thank you for your lovely and generous response! We will certainly consider it!