Talk:JFLAP

Free software

I only want to precise that this is definitely not free software. Free software can be commercial, and this is non-commercial software. [1]

So... a question. Can we say in an encyclopedia that it's at least "open source"? I don't know if this license is approved by the Open Source Initiative... --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Today I've contacted OSI about this question. Waiting for any response. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 23:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting:

Hello,

I have a OSI compatibility license question.

Can we consider a software under this license "open source"?

http://www.cs.duke.edu/csed/jflap/jflaptmp/aug28-09/license.html

Re:

The short answer is, no.

Any software carrying the JFLAP 7.0 LICENSE should not be labeled "open
source software" for a few reasons.

First, the JFLAP 7.0 LICENSE is not certified by the OSI as an approved
open source license. Only software distributed under an OSI approved
license should be labeled, "open source software", A complete list of
OSI approved open source licenses can be found here: https://opensource
.org/licenses

Secondly, the license would most likely not be certified by the OSI
because it has a few terms that contradict the Open Source Definition
(OSD). For background, the OSD criteria is used by the OSI in the
license review process to ensure all submitted licenses ensure software
freedom. A license must meet all the criteria of the OSD to be
approved.

The conflicts with the OSD include:
Section I.2: "You cannot charge a fee for any product that includes any
part of JFLAP, in source or binary form." 
Section II.2: "You cannot charge a fee for any product that includes
any part of your modified JFLAP, in source or binary form."

All Open Source software can be used for commercial purpose; the Open
Source Definition guarantees this. You can even sell Open Source
software. As the JFLAP 7.0 LICENSE does not allow one to sell the
software ("charge a fee"), then it would not qualify as open source
software.

Hope this helps,
Patrick

So this is not definitely even "open source" as in by OSI. I think that we can easily avoid the term "open source" e.g. talking about the source available but under some restrictions. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)