Talk:Flora License

FYI: Addition to 1.1 from 1.0 (no important(?) difference)

It seemed to me that version 1.1 added clause 4.1, an "attribution clause", changing the license, but it was there all along only this page didn't mention it, so I reverted my change [1]. I'm not saying the clause needs to be added here(?) as it seems to be no burden. However it ends in "otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License and your own copyright statement or terms and conditions do not conflict the conditions stated in this License including section 3." instead of in version 1.0 "otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License." I am not a lawyer but to my untrained eye it seems to be just some clarification. The rest of the "diff" seems not important:

< Version 1.1, April, 2013

> Version 1.0, May, 2012

< http://floralicense.org/license

> http://www.tizenopensource.org/license

< "Tizen Certified Platform" shall mean a software platform that complies with the standards set forth in the Tizen Compliance Specification and passes the Tizen Compliance Tests as defined from time to time by the Tizen Technical Steering Group and certified by the Tizen Association or its designated agent.

> "Tizen Certified Platform" shall mean a software platform that complies with the standards set forth in the Compatibility Definition Document and passes the Compatibility Test Suite as defined from time to time by the Tizen Technical Steering Group and certified by the Tizen Association or its designated agent.

comp.arch (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Non-free? "Free" but only for Tizen.

See my addition of "somewhere between proprietary and open-source" [2] "reverting" KAMiKAZOW's "permissive". See also [3] for support of this, and other projects non-approval [4]. And the separate non-free for sure [5]. Include mention here? Maybe it's in WP elsewerer (Tizen?). comp.arch (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, you left out the “in theory” part and in general quoted very selectively. Just a paragraph later Tizen is called “open and real Linux”. I also don't get why that sentence from some journal should take precedence over Webinos’ Open Governance White Paper. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I did try to click the Webinos link (and looked at all the others and googled myself), but it's dead.. I'm also not sure if it might refer to version 1.0 and not 1.1 of the license (or if it matters). “there are no formal limitations with regard to obtaining the source code and creating derivatives thereof” just seems not to be true or at least not in general. What if I use the source in something not approved as a "Tizen Certified Platform"? I admit I didn't read much longer in the Linux Journal (that part is a quote from someone else). See also the H-online link about it not getting OSI approval; then not being "open source"? Who defines that..? comp.arch (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I did try to click the Webinos link (and looked at all the others and googled myself), but it's dead

Funny, I found the changed location within seconds…

I'm also not sure if it might refer to version 1.0 and not 1.1 of the license (or if it matters)

You could check the differences between 1.0 and 1.1…

“there are no formal limitations with regard to obtaining the source code and creating derivatives thereof” just seems not to be true or at least not in general. What if I use the source in something not approved as a "Tizen Certified Platform"?

Then you don't get a patent license, just as it’s the case with every standard BSD/MIT license. You could read the article. It specifically states that very fact!

I admit I didn't read much longer in the Linux Journal

Yeah, maybe you should…

OSI approval; then not being "open source"? Who defines that..?

The H-Online author made a guess that the license would be incompatible. Considering that the Flora License was not submitted for review to the OSI, this is still a guess. As I see it, there is no analysis more thorough than Webinos’. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)