It seems my recent concerns on the OpenAirInterface re-licensing were not unjustified.
I contacted various legal experts on Free Software legal community about this, and the response was unanimous: In all feedback I received, the general opinion was that software under the OSA Public License V1.0 is neither Free Software nor Open Source Software.
The rational is, that it does not fulfill the criteria of
- the FSF Free Software definition, as the license does not fulfill freedom 0: The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (which obviously includes commercial use)
- the Open Source Initiatives Open Source Definition, as the license must not discriminate against fields of endeavor, such as commercial use.
- the Debian Free Software Guidelines, as the DFSG also require no discrimination against fields of endeavor, such as commercial use.
I think we as the community need to be very clear about this. We should not easily tolerate that people put software under restrictive licenses but still call that software open source. This creates a bad impression to those not familiar with the culture and spirit of both Free Software and Open Source. It creates the impression that people can call something Open Source but then still ask royalties for it, if used commercially.
It is a shame that entities like Eurecom and the OpenAirInterface Software Association are open-washing their software by calling it Open Source when in fact it isn't. This attitude frankly makes me sick.
That's just like green-washing when companies like BP are claiming they're now an environmental friendly company just because they put some solar panels on the roof of some building.