Post #1724011
2026-04-06 15:31 UTC
@lina @organicmaps @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu
hi, i edited paragraph 3 to make it less ambiguous and more direct.
" im probably misunderstanding but are you saying that "attribution always required = free" and "attribution requirement can be removed by request = nonfree"?"
No. required attribution is good and is ubiquitous in free licenses
attribution is seperate from branding
the issue is the conditional permission to modify branding. the FSF recognizes licenses that require branding to be changed to avoid confusion between forks and derivative projects, but the FSF does not accept branding being used as a tool to effectively hinder or limit the user's freedom to modify and redistribute without permission.
Replies (1)
-
@lina@tech.lgbt 2026-04-06 15:38
@memoria @opensourceopenmind @manankanchu @organicmaps how does it infringe on the rights you’ve listed? from what i can see the no rebranding thing is a direct consequence of the - accepted - required attribution, so the clause could be removed altogether / considered redundant if not for the “you can request custom terms”. which is equivalent to the data being dual licensed, which is also prevalent in FOSS projects